Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) AMENDMENT ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Amendment; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Construction Industry

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposal he has to boost construction industry output.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to increase the confidence of the construction industry.

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to increase the confidence of the construction industry.

Mr Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to boost construction industry output.

The Secretary off State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): The £800 million of additional public expenditure which has been allocated in the past year for the

period up to 1980 will provide a stable level of public sector demand for the construction industry. This will certainly assist in restoring the industry's confidence.

Mr. Durant: Is the Minister aware that following a number of bankruptcies in the Berkshire area there is still no confidence in the future of this industry? Therefore, will he take three simple steps to restore confidence? Will he, first, drop the proposals to nationalise this industry; secondly, rescind the Community Land Act; and, thirdly, look at the whole question of planning procedures in order to accelerate them?

Mr. Shore: The first two supplementary points put by the hon. Gentleman are, with respect to him, wholly irrelevant. On his third point, I am only too willing to examine our planning procedures so that we can accelerate them.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the utter depression that exists in this industry will cause more problems in the future in terms of skill, because the young people are not getting the apprenticeships that they ought to get and will be short of skills at a later date?

Mr. Shore: It is a very serious matter. We are very much concerned to encourage industry and the various public sectors of the industry to maintain the right number of people under training for these skills and to encourage the acquisition of skills in the training centres outside the industry.

Mr. Costain: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that if, under his blacklisting scheme, a nominated sub-contractor—that is, a sub-contractor which his Department instructs a main contractor to employ—breaks the Pay Code, the Secretary of State is claiming the right to break the main contract? Is not that absolutely abortive of human rights? Is that the way to bring confidence to the industry?

Mr. Shore: I discussed this matter with representatives of the industry as recently as 28th February. There is a problem in relation to sub-contractors. As the hon. Gentleman knows, these matters are still under discussion between Government Ministers and the CBI.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Berkshire branch


of the Royal Institute of British Architects believes that the present fiscal arrangements discriminate against the construction industry? What discussions has he had with the Chancellor about applying full depreciation allowances for new industrial and commercial buildings in the same way as plant and equipment are treated?

Mr. Shore: We have to try to get this matter in perspective. It is noticeable that over a number of years the discrimination to which the hon. Gentleman refers
has been accepted by successive Governments in favour of the encouragement of investment. The fact is that there is now a 50 per cent. depreciation arrangement in year one for firms engaging in new factory building. This is a matter that we keep under review, and I am in touch with the Chancellor about it.

Mr. Hardy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be rather more seemly and a trifle less contemptible if Conservative Members were to encourage Conservative-controlled local authorities to engage in a higher level of construction activity than the very deplorable level which many of them undertake at present?

Mr. Shore: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This is particularly relevant in the whole area of house building, particularly local authority house building. However, as far as I can see, there is a very deliberate discouragement from Conservative Central Office and from Conservative spokesmen for local authorities to build.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already done in releasing more resources in this area. Does he agree that a great deal more could be done, above all on house repairs, where a great deal of new employment could be encouraged, with valuable results?

Mr. Shore: That is why we raised the limits and generally made the conditions easier last July. I have reason to believe that there will be an increasing uptake in improvement work during the coming year.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, far from the responsibility of the Conservative-controlled

local authorities, it is the climate within which those authorities are expected to trade that has created the downturn in construction activity, and that the climate is one for which this Government are responsible? Does he understand that the Labour Party manifesto, on which he was elected, promised a stable work force for the construction industry? Why should his assurance be any more valid today than in 1974?

Mr. Shore: That comes ill from the hon. Gentleman, representing a party whose last major act of the almost forgotten Chancellor—the then Mr. Anthony Barber—was to cut public expenditure by £1,150 million in December 1973, of which over £850 million was in construction. Let us hear no more about stability from the hon. Gentleman.
As for the future and what the hon. Gentleman said about the climate, at least part of the climate of confidence is reflected in industrial investment. In the past year investment by manufacturing industry in new building increased by 18 per cent.

Mr. Madden: Is not the fact of the matter that the fortunes of the construction industry rest to a very large extent on the levels of public expenditure? In that regard, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether a massive programme of improvement and modernisation in both the public and private sectors would not only be socially useful but would help to combat high levels of unemployment among building workers? What is happening in that area?

Mr. Shore: In reply to the original Question, I indicated that we had in fact made a substantial increase in public expenditure to help the construction industry in this coming year—1978–79—and that it would continue at a more stable level into 1979–80 and beyond. I believe that that will help the industry. As my hon. Friend knows, we also wish to see a considerable pick-up in investment in manufacturing industry. The figure that I gave indicates that there are certainly signs of that taking place.

Weather Damage (European Community Aid)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has


yet received an official communication from the EEC Commission about EEC aid for recent flood and storm damage in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Shore: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Blaker: Does the Secretary of State recall that on 15th February the Commission stated that the offer of nearly £1 million in aid for the East Coast of England and parts of Scotland was made after discussion with United Kingdom authorities? Did the Government in those discussions put forward the case for part of the EEC aid going to the Lancashire coast, which suffered severe flood and storm damage in November?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on the point about discussion. There might have been some informal exchanges, but there was no discussion with Ministers before the Commission made its offer. I have subsequently tried to sort out the general terms of the offer that was made. I have very much in mind the point made by the hon. Gentleman, that other areas of the country have also suffered and that it would be helpful if the offer were more broadly spread.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom's contributions to the Community budget in 1977 exceeded receipts by no less than £377 million? Against that background, could not the Common Market mandarins afford to be more generous than they have been so far?

Mr. Shore: That raises the whole question of the nature and imbalance of the monetary contributions that this country has made. We have been over this ground before. I thought that I should not necessarily raise it on this question of flood relief.

Mr. Thorpe: Will the Secretary of State confirm that although £900,000 has been received, it has not been allocated specifically to any region of the United Kingdom, and that any suggestion that it has is totally wrong?

Mr. Shore: I do not think that anyone has made any such suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman will understand from the nature of the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South

(Mr. Blaker) that it would be premature to think of allocating it until we have decided which regions are eligible to receive it.

Mr. Alison: Is the Secretary of State aware that on the basis that help should first come from home, Thanet and the Canterbury District Council, despite the fact that severe damage was caused on 12th January and officials from the Department inspected that damage on 17th January, have still not received a single penny to help towards repairing the breaches in the sea wall and that more damage is threatened later this month?

Mr. Shore: Help will come from home. We fully accept the responsibility of looking after our own people in our own country. That is the intention of the arrangements that I have already announced. We have urged local authorities to use the powers that they have without any delay to deal with urgent cases of need. They have those powers under Section 138 of the Local Government Act. We have said that as soon as they have firm estimates they are to come to us so that we can decide how much and in what way we can assist them.

Holyrood House

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated annual expenditure on the Palace of Holyrood House, Edinburgh.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): The estimated gross expenditure by the Department on the Palace of Holyrood House for 1977–78 is £378,940.

Mr. Canavan: Instead of spending all that public money on a costly white elephant, which is normally used for only one Royal visit and a couple of garden parties every year, will the Government consider the Palace of Holyrood House as a possible meeting place for the Scottish Assembly? If the Royal Family are stuck for digs when they visit Edinburgh, they could apply for admission to the Royal High School.

Mr. Marks: I should explain that the Palace is open to visitors throughout the year, except on occasions when the Royal Family or the Commissioner stay there. I am not sure whether the Scottish


Assembly would want to emulate this Parliament by moving into a Royal Palace as we did in the sixteenth century. On that occasion the King invited the Commons into the Palace and closed the chapel for that purpose. I think that perhaps my hon. Friend's question ought to go to another place.

Council House Sales

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider banning sales of council houses by local authorities where there is a known housing shortage.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): Not at present. But I am concerned that some councils appear to be selling indiscriminately and disregarding local housing needs. I shall be ready to amend the general consent if circumstances warrant it.

Mr. Dean: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of these post-war houses are being sold at the give-away price of £5,000 and that to replace them by new houses costs £70,000 over the 60-year repayment period? Will he look into the situation in Leeds where the council is continuing to sell council houses although there is a waiting list of over 20,000 families?

Mr. Freeson: I shall certainly examine further the figures quoted by my hon. Friend. I am rather concerned at the extent to which indiscriminate policies are being pursued in some parts of the country. I shall watch the situation closely with a view to action, if necessary.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every survey that has been carried out has demonstrated that about 80 per cent. of all young people want to own their own homes? Are Conservative-controlled councils to understand that the Minister is now threatening that the Government will take action against them if they meet that need?

Mr. Freeson: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should introduce a little coolness into his assessment of need in this area and should use his good offices to get local authorities with which he has contact to look at the detailed pattern

of housing need and demand in their areas and match their action to that, and not to preconceived indiscriminate policies such as are advocated by him.

Mr. Ovenden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Medway Borough Council is not only selling houses to sitting tenants but is embarking on an advertising campaign to persuade people living in flats and maisonettes who wish to buy houses to obtain transfers? Does he regard that as consistent with the policy of selling houses to sitting tenants and as fair to those who will have to continue to live for ever longer periods in unsuitable conditions because the houses that they need for their families have been sold off?

Mr. Freeson: This is an important matter not only to Medway but to local authorities generally. One of the considerations that we have to keep in mind—and I hope that local authorities of whatever political persuasion will have it in mind in considering this matter—is the housing management of total estates, and the transfer of families from blocks of flats to houses which have gardens in which their kids can play. There is an indication that if present policies are per-sued indiscriminately certain blocks of flatted estates will be turned into ghettoes out of which families will not be able to move.

Mr. Rossi: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no council may sell below the cost of the house in the first place, and that a 20 per cent. discount on current market value provides a substantial capital and revenue gain to local authorities? Will he, therefore, allow local authorities, as of right, to sell at a 30 per cent. discount, which would still show a considerable gain to the taxpayer and ratepayer and give the local authority tenant the mobility that he does not otherwise enjoy?

Mr. Freeson: First, I have to remind the hon. Gentleman—I thought that he was a Minister in the Department of the Environment at the time—that the 30 per cent. discount introduced by some local authorities was authorised by the then Government at a time of steeply rising inflation in house prices. That was the reason given at the time, but that is not the position now. Secondly, the figuring that he has quoted is not strictly


accurate. The 20 per cent. discount is a general rule. I believe that there are some circumstances, unfortunately, where the rule about sale below cost does not arise, and we are giving consideration to that. There is plenty of evidence to show that there is little capital gain. Most council house sales do not take place on the basis of building society mortgages. That form of sale applies to very few.

Building Firms

Mr. Fry: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to introduce proposals to nationalise building firms.

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any discussions with private sector construction firms regarding their nationalisation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to introduce proposals to nationalise building firms.

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to nationalise the construction industry.

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any discussions with private sector construction firms regarding their nationalisation.

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with building firms regarding social ownership.

Mr. Shore: I have no current proposals to nationalise building or construction firms; no consultations or discussions have therefore taken place.

Mr. Fry: Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean about his own views and intentions? Does he support the Labour Party's official policy? If so, has he costed that policy? Does he agree with the late Aneurin Bevan, who said that when we talk about nationalising the building industry we are really saying "Let's nationalise every industry in Great Britain"?

Mr. Shore: I advise the hon. Gentleman to read carefully the statement made by the national executive committee of the Labour Party that was presented to the last year's annual conference. If he does so, he will find the answer.

Mr. Speaker: I shall call first those Members whose Questions are being answered, and then I will give a run to the other side of the House.

Mr. Jones: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is very forthcoming on this question. Has he had correspondence with any of the major British contracting firms? I am thinking particularly of Laing, Wimpey, Wates and Taylor Woodrow. When considering nationalisation, what regard is being given to the overseas activities of such firms, which are extremely beneficial to the balance of payments?

Mr. Shore: I shall have to check whether, on this matter, I have had individual letters from the firms that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. At present, I cannot recall. However, I understand his point about the great importance of the contribution that major construction firms play in the very large orders that are still to be won, and are being won, for British industry in the Middle East and in many other overseas markets.

Mr. Lawrence: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he has not carefully read the policy of the 1977 Labour Party conference on the nationalisation of the construction industry? Is it his intention to press for the implementation of that policy to be included either in the Queen's Speech or the next Labour Party manifesto, whichever is the first? If that is his intention, will he deny that the initial outlay will be £1,500 million and that the annual running costs will be £200 million in the implementation of that policy?

Mr. Shore: I think that I can safely say that I do not confirm the hon. Gentleman's tortured arithmetic. That apart, I say to him that I have read the document. It is a very good analysis of the problems of the industry. It identifies them in a serious way. As it states, it comes forward, as an interim report, with a number of proposed solutions. There will be further studies by the NEC—and no doubt with other bodies—before further decisions are made.

Mr. Sainsbury: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reference to having no current proposals to nationalise will be severely damaging to confidence in the construction industry and, therefore, to investment and job opportunities? Will he now reassure the House that he has no proposals for nationalisation?

Mr. Shore: If the hon. Gentleman and and his party had said at a similar stage in the life of the Conservative Government that there was no current proposal to nationalise Rolls-Royce, the Conservative Government would have been safeguarding their position against all eventualities. Thinking does not stop when Members of Parliament become Secretaries of State, and the future of the industry is something with which I am much concerned.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that the Opposition Members who raise these questions today have not read the statement made by the national executive committee of the Labour Party? Is it not also clear that the statement makes clear that the proposal is to establish a national construction corporation, based upon one or two of the major companies? The statement refers to the extension of direct labour organisations and the encouragement of co-operatives at the lowest level. This is not the full nationalisation of the industry. As the Estates Times has said about those who speak for the Opposition, they want to start doing something serious before they are to be taken into consideration on this issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have rumbled you."] They have really rumbled Conservative Members.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend knows better than most in the House what is in the document. As I understand it, he presided over the working party that produced it. However, I go slightly further than my hon. Friend. He wrote in Building Week only a short time ago that it may be possible to create a national construction corporation without taking over any contractor. I do not think that it is right for the House to judge any of these matters. They have yet to be concluded. They will be discussed and considered carefully.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Opposition Members continually call for public expenditure

when it will help the construction industry? Is he aware that many Labour Members believe that the industry depends almost completely on public sector orders and that the quicker it is brought into public ownership the better?

Mr. Shore: The matter that is of the greatest concern to the construction industry does not arise from the questions that the Opposition are throwing at us but lies in the overall demand that can be anticipated in future, in whether there can be great improvements in not only labour conditions, which are extremely important, but labour relations, and in whether there can be greater stability in the flow of orders from both the public and private sectors in future.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that his answer will confirm the worst suspicions of those who have watched the evolution of policy in the Labour Party? Does he also understand that his evasive answer has confirmed that in that policy there is not hostility to nationalisation and that it is simply a matter of timing, of when it can be introduced with the minimum electoral disadvantage to the Labour Party? Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that as long as that ambivalent attitude prevails on the Government Benches, investment will not flow and the present scandalous levels of unemployment in the construction industry will remain?

Mr. Shore: I believe that the hon Gentleman is in a state of almost permanent political neurosis on the subject of public ownership. I do not believe that any words that I can offer will help to relieve him of that unfortunate condition.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that many Labour Members think that it is a pity that he said today that he had no further plans to nationalise the construction industry? Does he understand that one of the motives behind the Tories tabling so many Questions on this subject is that it assists them to obtain a number of directorships, bearing in mind the activities of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and his connections with Bovis? In view of the bankruptcies which have taken place in the industry and the


dwindling number of directorships that are now on offer, obviously the Tories are running into serious problems and may even have to contemplate taking directorships of skateboard companies.

Mr. Shore: I appreciate that there is a close connection between a number of Conservative Members and particular construction firms. Whether that enables those Members to bring the necessary detachment to bear on the affairs of the industry or gives them added insight into these problems, I leave to the House to judge. In regard to future policy, I must point out that we have yet to have the kind of discussions that are normal within the Labour Party. If and when we make firm proposals on the construction industry or anything else, they will be made public and will be part of the agreed policy of the party.

House Building

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for housing starts and completions in the public and private sectors.

Mr. Freeson: The figures for January 1978 were published on 6th March. After seasonal adjustments have been made, there were 11,000 public sector starts and 11,400 completions in Great Britain; for the private sector the figures are 11,500 starts and 12,900 completions.

Mr. Ovenden: I congratulate the Government on the number of completions achieved in the public sector in the last three years, because it is a 50 per cent. improvement on the figure achieved by the Conservative Government in their last year of office.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern on the Labour Benches about the decline in public sector starts, as is evidenced by last year's figure and the disappointing figure issued in January this year? Does he not think that the time has come to lift all restriction on local authority building in non-stress areas to compensate for the failure of Tory authorities in stress areas to enable them to meet their commitments?

Mr. Freeson: I have expressed my concern on this subject for some time. It is a serious matter that there is a prospect of a reduction in the number of starts, not because of lack of resources provided

by the Government but following the failure of a number of local authorities to take up those resources, with effects being felt in underspending and lack of housing investment. Before I consider the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend in seeking to solve the problem, I should like to consider other possibilities. We are now examining the matter closely.

Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware that the Berwick-on-Tweed Borough Council is determined to build more houses but finds it impossible to obtain tenders because of the housing cost yardstick? Will he consider meeting a deputation from the council?

Mr. Freeson: I do not know about the necessity for meeting a deputation from that council. There are other authorities which face similar problems in the region. I am aware that there are problems in the Northern Region that are more deeply felt than perhaps elsewhere in the country. We are examining the matter closely. We shall shortly have the quarterly review of the housing cost yardstick levels and I hope to take action following that review.

Mr. James Lamond: Since it is clear that Tory-controlled local authorities are dragging their feet on new housing starts, why does not my right hon. Friend step directly into house building by setting up an English special housing association on similar lines to the Scottish Special Housing Association, which can take over from the Tory councils when they fail in their duty to the public?

Mr. Freeson: If one were to pursue that proposition—and this is not the first time it has been made—it would take some time, even if adopted, to implement and bring into action. In the meantime, there are other measures that we must consider in seeking to keep the level of housing activity up to that for which we have provided resource levels.

Mr. Rossi: Does the Minister agree that it is wrong to expect local authorities to increase their borrowings for new building and yet to retain their rate demands within the limits required by the Government? Does he agree that the fall-back in the number of starts has occurred in the private as well as in the public sector? Does he not remember that Shelter condemned the Government's


housing record in 1977 as being the worst for 15 years? Furthermore, does he believe that the current policy of mortgage restriction helps private industry to build more houses?

Mr. Freeson: There are three or four supplementary questions tied up in the hon. Gentleman's comments. The answer to his point about the public sector is "No", because I do not think that the present state of the local rates is a reason for the hold-up in public sector starts. There are other reasons. Uppermost in my mind at present in this context are the policy decisions and influences stemming from the Conservative Central Office, from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, and from Conservatives in the town halls. As for the other supplementary questions put to me by the hon. Gentleman, I shall deal with them when they are put separately.

Mr. Frank Allaun: If builders know that there are sufficient mortgages available, does it not encourage them? Is not the best way to help keep down house prices to increase the supply of private and council houses rather than to restrict the supply of mortgages?

Mr. Freeson: I do not follow my hon. Friend's reasoning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Opposition memories are short. There has been much talk from the Opposition, but there was little action by the Tory Government in the early 1970s. We all know that what happened then was an explosion in house prices and a major collapse in house building in the private sector, from which we are still recovering.

Mr. McCrindle: If I may attempt to link the matter of starts and completions in the private sector with the subject of house prices, may I ask the Minister of State what effect on house prices will be caused by the fact that the Government are leaning on the building societies? How does that square with the movement towards building societies and the legislation on this subject which is now passing through the House seeking to provide grants and loans to first-time buyers, which may affect prices in the opposite direction?

Mr. Freeson: If I may take the hon. Gentleman's last point first, these mat-

ters were examined and discussed at considerable length when the legislation to which he refers was before the House on Second Reading. Those matters will also be subject to a good deal of scrutiny when the Bill goes into Committee.
At this stage I merely wish to say that the scheme set out in the Bill to assist first-time buyers is planned to cover the kind of problem with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. The scheme will operate in such a way as to allow adjustment in the market to take place over a period of two years or so.
On the other point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I prefer to save my comments until the Building Societies Association has considered this matter, which I understand will be not very long from now. I thought that we were all concerned—not only in this House but outside it—to attain stability not only in house prices but in the supply of mortgage money. That is why we are operating the joint scheme with the building societies through the joint advisory committee.

Sewage Disposal

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange that payment for sewage disposal from properties not connected to the main sewers will be covered by payment of the appropriate rate, in view of the support for this course of a substantial body of informed opinion.

Mr. Marks: The Government's intentions on this problem are outlined in the White Paper, "The Water Industry in England and Wales: The Next Steps." (Cmnd 6876).

Mr. Hardy: Is it not time that we had a firm assurance of imminent progress on this subject? Does the Minister accept that comparisons are being drawn between the experience of those whose waste disposal depends on cesspools and the cost of operating a sewered service in sparsely populated or remote areas?

Mr. Marks: The legislation on those matters awaits the parliamentary timetable, and it is not a matter for me. However, the White Paper outlined ways in which these problems could be avoided. In the meantime, I cannot make directions to local authorities to act as though the implemented.

Mr. John Ellis: Will the Minister also comment on the amount of dereliction which has taken place in the provision of underground services? Is he aware that in the older areas, such as Lancashire, possibly as much as £1,000 million will have to be spent on underground sewers which are falling in and which will create a huge problem in the next decade?

Mr. Marks: This is a matter with which many regional water authorities, especially in the North-West, are greatly concerned. It is questionable whether an amount could be fixed in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, but I repeat that this is a matter of which the authorities in the areas are extremely conscious.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Following the previous Question on the limitation which the Government imposed on the borrowing by regional water authorities, will the Minister consider allowing them to go into the open market? Is the Minister aware that they have had to borrow vast sums at high interest rates of 15 per cent. or 16 per cent.? Does he agree that it would be much cheaper for them to borrow on the open market? Is it not time to implement that policy?

Mr. Marks: Interest rates have not remained at that high level, as the authorities well know from their balances this year. This matter is included in the plans for the regional water authorities and is being discussed with the National Water Council.

Council Tenants (Security of Tenure)

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce a Bill extending security of tenure to council house tenants.

Mr. Freeson: As soon as we can complete the necessary consultations and a place can be found in the Government's legislative programme.

Mr. Watkinson: Does the Minister accept that the provision of security of tenure for council house tenants is an integral part of the last Labour Party manifesto? Is it not time we took action directly on this matter and, indeed, on the council tenants' charter? Will he do his best to bring forward legislation this Session?

Mr. Freeson: I cannot guarantee the last request for reasons of which my hon. Friend will be aware. However, I can give him a general assurance that it is still our committed policy. We intend to bring forward legislation when we can. This will not be simple legislation. It will raise some complex legal and managerial questions, which will have to be resolved.

Mr. Tebbit: Is not ownership the most secure form of tenure?

Mr. Freeson: The most secure form of tenure is not in all cases ownership. I hope that the hon. Member will not join or stay with that unhappy throng of people of his side of the House who wish to see the virtual end of the rented sector, which is primarily local authority and housing association owned.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Minister aware that those with properties at Black-gang, in the Isle of Wight, certainly did not think that ownership was the most secure form of tenure? Will he look favourably at the idea of long-leasing council houses? Does he agree that that would be one way to get tenants to take more responsibility for maintenance?

Mr. Freeson: There are a variety of ways in which we can implement the objectives that we have set out under the general heading of the tenants' charter. Long leases are just one of those ways. Some local authorities have tried three-, four- or five-year renewable leases. Others are embarking on co-operative housing, either by tenant management or tenant ownership. There are various other means that can be adopted. There is no single way forward. There are a variety of ways forward, and we shall pursue them.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the Minister recognise that there is no better way of giving council tenants the greatest possible capital stake than by giving them the opportunity to own?

Mr. Freeson: I wish that the hon. Member would keep off this obsession. There is more than one way of handling housing policy, both nationally and locally. If he and some of his hon. Friends would pay attention to the variety of problems and needs that have to be met instead of riding one hobby horse every time the question of housing is raised, we might make some progress with


them in establishing a constructive housing policy.

Direct Labour

Mr. Mates: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to extend the direct labour powers of local authorities.

Mr. Body: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with local authorities regarding the extension of direct labour activity.

Mr. Shore: I have no immediate proposals in this field, but it remains my intention to introduce legislation dealing with the activities of direct labour organisations. I have not had any further discussions with the local authorities since 1976 when the original Local Authorities (Works) Bill was being drawn up.

Mr. Mates: Since he dodged the question when he was asked it by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), will the Minister now say what such extension would cost? What does he say to the irrefutable evidence that where direct labour is used it is less efficient, more costly and less satisfactory than putting the job out to private enterprise?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Member is allowing himself to be persuaded by a lot of ill-digested and perverted information. The truth is that there is a great range of costs in the different building sectors, whether they are private or public. I do not believe that the measure that we have in mind—which has been discussed in the House—sensibly to extend direct labour powers would lead to any additional costs.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Sheffield Metropolitan District Council, since long before it was a metropolitan council, has a direct labour department which is the apple of its eye and which it guards most carefully? Is he aware that many millions of pounds have been saved by this department and that it is acknowledged by the citizens of Sheffield, who vote Labour repeatedly in order to achieve a strong Labour council?

Mr. Shore: That is true. The experience of Sheffield can be matched by many

other former metropolitan councils. Direct labour plays a very important part indeed.

Mr. Budgen: Will the Secretary of State please condescend to give the House some facts? Will he tell us what evidence he has that direct labour organisations, in any authority, are more efficient or more profitable than are private construction firms?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Member knows that the operating conditions under which direct labour organisations work are different from those under which building firms work in terms of house construction. One of the things that we wanted to do was to make it possible to sort out the different activities of DLOs so that the matter could be more sensibly judged in the future.

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that direct labour organisations, because of their size, have worked under great difficulties, and that there is a need to remove the restrictions from some of them? Will my right hon. Friend urge people to read the document on this question and examine the serious proposals for competitive direct labour organisations, for removing the restrictions, and for imposing serious control, which has sometimes not been forthcoming in every direct labour organisation as it has not been in many private enterprise companies which have gone out of existence?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is right. There are unnecessary restrictions on a number of DLOs. As part of the general package to remove these restrictions, they should be put on an obviously competitive basis with private sector firms.

Housing Revenue Accounts and Council House Rents

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, following the reduction in interest rates, diminishing the cost of council houses by 60p weekly on average for each 1 per cent. interest rate reduction, he will give the average fall in interest rates for local authorities on their new and total borrowing, respectively, since their peak; what future for average council rents he anticipates; and if he will now revise his guidelines and Green Paper proposals for further rent increases.

Mr. Freeson: Local authority costs have not fallen by 60p a week. The local authority "pool rate" has fallen from 10·5 per cent. in 1976–77 to 10·2 per cent. in 1977–78, a drop of 0·3 per cent. or about 18p a week per dwelling. Expenditure on housing revenue accounts, including that from £2,000 million average investment per year, has increased.
With permission, I will circulate the full figures requested in the Official Report. I see no reason to revise rent guidelines for 1978–79 or the proposals in the Green Paper.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that a number of housing directors and treasurers tell me that interest rates have fallen, on average, by 3½ per cent.? In view of this boon, will he reconsider the guidelines for increasing rents by 60p a week and the White Paper proposals to increase rents in line with incomes? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the vital decision last Friday to remove the condition that 60p should be added to rents if the high-price building subsidy is to remain.

Mr. Freeson: I do not know what consultations my hon. Friend has had with directors and treasurers, but I am not sure that I should accept without further information that even in these cases the "pool rate" of interest—which is what counts—lias gone down by 3 per cent. I doubt that. It might have occurred in areas where there is a reduction in activity, but not in others. I see no reason for reviewing the guidelines in rent policy, either in the Green Paper or for 1978.

Mr. Durant: Does the Minister accept that most tenants would agree to rent increases if they felt that they had more control over their destiny? If the Government have not time to introduce a tenants' charter Bill, will they support the Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre)?

Mr. Freeson: There are serious inadequacies in that Bill. On the general point, I and the Government need no urging to get local authorities and housing associations to do more in democratising their procedures and in involving tenants—[Interruption.] I can tell those who are

interrupting and catcalling that it was this Government who, among other things, introduced co-operative housing into the law. There are now 200 schemes in the pipeline, after only 18 months. Nothing was done by the Conservatives. Many other things are being done under this Government on the question of tenant management. I am sure that the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) is interested, even if his hon. Friends who are interrupting are not.

Mr. Spriggs: Many council house rents are far too high. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would make good sense to make a national reduction in those rents?

Mr. Freeson: I do not accept my hon. Friend's general proposition. There may be individual cases where rents are higher than they should be. I only hope that full information and guidance is given to tenants about the rent rebates that are available to them. I do not accept that council house rents in this country are too high—

Mr. Skinner: They are.

Mr. Freeson: I know as much about this subject as does my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Following is the information:




Average rates of interest




New local authority borrowing Per cent.
Total local authority borrowing ("pool rate") Per cent.


1976–77
…
13·1
10·5


1977–78
…
8·5
10·2

House Building and Improvement Grants (Birmingham)

Mr. Litterick: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's estimate of the total amount of central Government money made available to the city of Birmingham for (a) house building and (b) home improvements in the current year; and what were the corresponding figures for the two previous years.

Mr. Freeson: For 1978–79 Birmingham's allocation for block 1, which includes house building, acquisition and


renovation, was £65·5 million. For 1977–78 the figure was £67·1 million. These are comparable figures at 1978–79 provisional outturn prices; similar figures for earlier years are not available. In addition, the Housing Corporation is currently investing £2·6 million in house building and renovation, and Birmingham has been allocated a further £3 million on housing for the period up to March 1979 as part of the inner cities construction package.

Mr. Litterick: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer, but does he agree that these increases do not keep pace with the rate of inflation? Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the existing circumstances where there are vast quantities of unused resources—human, material and financial—this is the best time, particularly when interest rates are falling, to embark upon a more ambitious programme of house construction and renovation? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that such a move would serve also to stimulate the economy?

Mr. Freeson: As soon as we are able to get more resources put into housing construction and other public sector working, I would welcome such a move and take the necessary steps in my area of responsibility. My immediate problem, however, is to see that the resources that we have already made available are taken up. In the case to which my hon. Friend refers there has been a reduction in the house building programme for 1978 which has led me to have to withdraw some of the resources from Birmingham and direct them elsewhere in order to maintain use of the money available.

Mr. Eyre: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his figures deliberately obscured the truth on this matter? On home improvements, does he realise that Birmingham has suffered because the Government's programme has been cut to less than one-third of its 1973 figure? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the serious social consequences of this to Birmingham and other large cities, where large areas of old housing are having to be left to deteriorate?

Mr. Freeson: The figures were not intended to be misleading, nor were they. They related to local authority action in terms of house building, acquisition and

improvement, which was what I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) to be asking about. There is a problem on improvement grants. It is a question not simply of what resources the Government can make available but of the resources that are being taken up. Consistently throughout the country in recent years there has been an underspend on the budgeted figure. We are taking action to try to get a bigger take-up of improvement grants. We initiated a campaign a few days ago to get that under way.

Mr. Lee: What action are the Government taking to deal with the bloody-mindedness of Conservative local authorities which refuse to take up resources and are thwarting the Government's efforts in this regard? Will my right hon. Friend consider the suggestion made earlier for the establishment of a housing agency on the lines of that in Scotland?

Mr. Freeson: I cannot add to my earlier answer about a special housing association for England. There are ways by which we can secure an increased take-up. I do not want to go into detail about them this afternoon, but we are seriously examining such means and we shall be making an announcement fairly soon.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that no one else will copy the language of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee). After all, we are the Mother of Parliaments.

Housing Finance (Sheffield)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the allocation to Sheffield for the housing investment programme for 1978–79.

Mr. Freeson: Following my meeting with Sheffield on 26th January, further discussions are taking place with the Department's regional office.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his sympathetic and helpful attitude to representations on this point is very much appreciated? Does he agree that it is of the utmost importance that cities such as Sheffield should be able to complete their full programmes without having to cut back through lack of resources?

Mr. Freeson: I endorse that. Here we see the contrast between various authorities. This authority wants to go ahead with a building programme. I have undertaken to be as helpful as I can to ensure that it maintains its activity in housing investment in 1978.

European Community (Loans and Grants)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make it easier for local and regional authorities to apply for EEC loans and grants under the regional Development Fund and Social Fund.

Mr. Shore: Questions about the Social Fund are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Full advice about applications to the Regional Development Fund has been made available to local and other public authorities. I have no reason to believe that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory.

Mr. Dykes: Considering the striking amounts that have been granted by the two funds over recent years—in the case of the Social Fund it has been about £200 million since 1973, and £151 million from the Regional Development Fund since the beginning of that year—will the Secretary of State reconsider his reply and make every effort to ensure that local authorities know the best; and most efficient way of applying for this kind of resource assistance, bearing in mind that there is a gross imbalance now between different areas of the country? Does he agree that some local authorities are well clued up, while others are not? Is it not the job of the Government to make sure that local authorities apply efficiency to the maximum and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether questions are as long as that in the European Parliament.

Mr. Shore: I certainly cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's figures. I think they may refer to the Social Fund, but of course they are gross figures and they take no account of our contribution. I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman

should go out of his way to emphasise what appears to be a gift to this country and quote net figures instead of gross figures.
It does not surprise me that many of the potential participants in the Regional Development Fund—the local authorities and other bodies concerned—are experiencing difficulty in the workings of the fund's administration. I believe that they are becoming more familiar with the way in which it operates, however.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will my right hon. Friend constantly make clear to those who think that the EEC acts as a Santa Claus to Britain that we always pay in more than we get out?

Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the overall contribution and the net benefit that we gain in terms of cash flow. With the Regional Development Fund, however, it is true that, exceptionally, we gain more than we contribute.

Mr. Marten: Does the Secretary of State recall the report of the Select Committee which looked into the Regional Development Fund and discovered that in the first three years we received £25 million a year? Does he agree that this is a minute amount compared with what our first five years of membership have cost us? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that cost is £800 million and that in 1979 and 1980 and beyond it will cost us £800 million a year to belong to the Community? The Regional Development Fund, therefore, is peanuts.

Mr. Shore: The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman are correct. It is about £20 million a year net to this country, and in terms of regional assistance it ought to be seen also against the background of the sum of about £600 million a year that we ourselves contribute to our regions.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c.

Ordered,
That the draft Social Security Pensions (Home Responsibilities and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

FINANCE (REDUCTION OF TAXATION)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to the reduction of taxation: and for connected purposes.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For those of us who do not know—there are so many things about which we do not know; and I am speaking, of course, on behalf of all of my colleagues, on both sides of the House—will you clarify whether a Member is entitled to bring a briefcase, or whatever that thing is, into the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: I must rule that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is not in order in bringing in a Dispatch Box. The real Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to do that.

Mr. Ridley: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I had no idea that there was any discrimination in these matters.
Before I reveal the details of my taxation proposals, I shall outline, as is customary on these occasions, the economic background against which my Budget has been prepared. I intend to put the facts fairly and squarely before the House.
This is the thirteenth Budget of this Parliament. I am not sure how many more Budgets it will be possible to cram in before the election. I assure the House, however, that so long as the present Government are in power, all future Budgets will be devoted single-mindedly towards one objective only—that of winning that election.
In each of the past 12 Budgets, as the House knows, we have been promised the golden decade, and an economic miracle has been predicted. In fact, it would be an economic miracle if anything happened at all. There will be ever more hysterical predictions as the election approaches.
The first miraculous prediction is that the rate of inflation will go on falling, despite the fact that the growth of the money supply is now running well above

target. The rate of inflation will be measured either quarter upon
quarter or year upon year, whichever gives the lower figure. The Chancellor may even cut VAT again, as he did in order to get the rate of inflation down to 8·4 per cent. in 1974. Even that rate is higher than our main overseas competitors' rates, but they will be lectured and hectored in order to get their rates up in time for our next election.
The next miraculous prediction is that the Government are dealing with unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman the Ancient Mariner told us last Thursday that the unemployment record of Germany
is much worse than ours by comparison."—[Official Report, 2nd March 1978; Vol. 945. c. 658.]
By this he meant that their rate had gone up from 0·8 per cent. to 3·5 per cent., while ours is stuck at 6·2 per cent. One and a half million people on the dole is hardly a success story—and in my judgment it is likely to get worse.
We are also told that our balance of payments is improving. But the surplus on trading account of £109 million for the whole of 1977 has already been wiped out by January's loss of £179 million. Moreover, anyone who mentions the fact that we have run up overseas debts of £13½ billion since 1974 will be accused of being unpatriotic. But these debts have to be paid back.
The next miraculous prediction is that next year public expenditure will rise by only 2·2 per cent., as shown in the White Paper, Cmnd. 7049. That prediction relies upon counting the nationalised industries' repayment of foreign loans as revenue, without which the increase in spending becomes 2·7 per cent. It also relies on making comparisons concerning the increase in next year's spending plans over this year's spending plans. If one compares them with this year's likely outturn, the figure becomes 6·7 per cent., which is, of course, the true but disguised figure. I think that the House would wish to pay tribute in respect of this matter to the excellent work of the chief book-cooker to the Treasury.
The next miraculous prediction is also in the White Paper. It is that economic growth, which has been completely stagnant for four years, will suddenly rise to an annual rate of 3½ per cent. How this is to be achieved with penal taxation,


bureaucratic interference and the threat of nationalisation hanging over industry is not made clear. The true description of the British economy—this, again, I think, will appeal to the Ancient Mariner—is
idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.
It is clear that the Government do not even believe their own growth forecasts. Ministers continue to use what the Chancellor calls the "patriotic" and "self-sacrificing" trade union movement in order to hold down the workers' pay.
Next year the voluntary guidelines will no doubt entail a further drop in living standards. The Government will deal with any board of directors which they do not like and which fails to limit pay according to the new voluntary guidelines for free collective bargaining. They will use all their powers, including withdrawal of 714 certificates, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Regulation 18B, the Mutiny Act and deportation to the colonies, against offenders. As the names of offenders are decided upon by the Cabinet, they must, of course, be kept secret because of the 30-year rule barring the publication of Cabinet papers.
By these means the Government will be successful in forcing down the standard of living still further. It has already gone down 8 per cent. since the beginning of the present Government. I calculate that if we were to go on like this for another 13 wasted years, it would disappear altogether.
If one looks not at the propaganda but at the truth of what is happening in the economy, one comes to the conclusion that it would be unwise to make any substantial net cuts in taxation. To do so would merely accelerate the increase in inflation which is likely to become evident in the autumn, anyway. If inflation is to be got down further, we need a maximum growth in M3 of about 10 per cent. for the coming year.
Nevertheless, it is so vital to reduce the burden of direct taxes that I am going to propose cuts in income tax. They will have to be paid for, in large measure, by increases in indirect taxes—VAT and taxes on petrol, wines, spirits, beer and tobacco. The absence of a Ways and Means Resolution may prevent me from doing this now, but it does not prevent

the Chancellor from doing it in the Finance (No. 2) Bill to follow on 11th April.
My proposals are as follows. In order to help skilled workers and managers, I intend to restore the 1973 value of the higher rate income tax thresholds. This will cost £610 million in a full year. It is essential to do this if we are to retain these people in this country at all.
I also intend to lower the top rate of income tax from 83 per cent. to 60 per cent. If the income is all invested income, the top rate will still be 75 per cent. This would cost £260 million to do on its own, but since I have restored the value of the higher rate thresholds, it will only cost about half that amount.
My Bill will also restore the starting point for investment income surcharge to the equivalent of the value it had in 1973—that is, £4,384 a year. This will cost £140 million in a full year. It is only social justice for the elderly who have saved to do this.
My Bill also restores the value of the personal and married allowances to the equivalent of the values they had in 1973. This will cost £2,250 million in a full year. This will virtually end the poverty trap and let millions out of the tax net altogether.
I regret that I am not able to restore the level of taxation to that applying in 1973, which would entail, in addition, a cut in the standard rate of income tax from 34 per cent. to 30 per cent. That would cost a further £1,950 million, bringing the total cost of going back to Tory tax levels to £5,200 million a year.
Thus the cost of what I propose is £3,230 million. It is not, of course, as drastic as I should like it to be, but to do more expenditure will first have to be cut. I think the Chancellor should increase indirect taxes by £2,000 million, and sell another £1,000 million of British Petroleum shares in order to finance it. The remaining £230 million could properly be taken on the borrowing requirement.
It is urgent to bring the country from the abyss of Socialist stagnation and inertia by cutting taxes. Nobody—not even the Liberal Party—can trust the Government to reduce our penal taxes in order to get the British economy moving again. Parliament must therefore act, and


the way for Parliament to act is to give me leave to introduce this modest Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Ridley and Mr. Ian Gow.

FINANCE (REDUCTION OF TAXATION)

Mr. Nicholas Ridley accordingly presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the reduction of taxation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5th May and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

Orders of the Day — WALES BILL

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 7th March.]

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

Clause 25

STAFF

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I beg to move Amendment No. 83, in page 10, line 10, at end add:
'but in no circumstances shall it be regarded as appropriate that any person be not appointed in any role as an officer or servant of the Assembly because of lack of knowledge of Welsh and if any person fails to secure a post as such an officer or servant because of his lack of knowledge of Welsh then he shall have a tortious cause of action enabling him to pursue a claim for damages against the Assembly in the County Court or High Court whichever is the appropriate jurisdiction'.
I think that I should perhaps first make it clear in moving the amendment, that I am concerned not about the detailed drafting being accepted by the Committee but that the principle should be accepted. Since, as so often occurs, there are clearly blemishes, upon which I shall comment, the Committee, if it wishes to express itself on the principle of the amendment, may decide to do so by throwing out the whole clause.
I say this because it is clear that my hon. Friends who have signed the amendment with me certainly would not have intended, for example, that there should be a position arising in which it would not be possible in any circumstances for an interpreter or a translator to be employed by the Assembly as an officer or servant. But I trust that the principle behind the amendment will become clear as I develop my argument, and I hope that it will be acceptable to the Committee.
I suppose that when we begin to discuss anything connected with the Welsh language we may recall the Act of 1536 passed by Henry VIII, which declared that


henceforth no Person or Persons that use the Welch Speech or Language shall have or enjoy any manner Office or Fees within this Realm of England, Wales, or other the King's Dominion, upon Pain of forfeiting the same Offices or Fees, unless he or they use and exercise the English Speech or Language.
Certainly in my lifetime that Act has long since gone into desuetude. It is equally true, however, that in my lifetime, as in the lifetime of my contemporaries in the House, great changes have been seen in attitudes to the Welsh language. It is because of the current changes that I bring the amendment to the Committee. I do so with some sadness and with some regret, because, of course, it should not be necessary for such an amendment to be debated.
The hostility that was expressed by the English establishment through the nineteenth century invoked a searing reply from Matthew Arnold in his work on Celtic literature It is true that, when I was young, that nineteenth century attitude was not so absurdly emphatic, but the effects of the disdain for the Welsh language had certainly not evaporated. When I was young parents feared that to bequeath the Welsh language to their children as part of their inheritance was to disadvantage them. Desperate as those parents were to give their children the chance to be liberated from the mines—or even more from unemployment—they gave no encouragement to the young to speak a language that it was feared would deprive them of many job opportunities.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The hon. Gentleman is telling the Committee that the disdain shown by some sections of the Welsh population in the last century towards the Welsh language has now almost completely evaporated. He also said that a certain section of the Act of 1536 had long fallen into disuse. I assure him that this disdain has not yet completely evaporated. Only very recently it was necessary for a man who wished to give his evidence in the Welsh language in a court of law in Wales to have the consent of that court for that purpose, and then to have the Welsh language translated into English, although everybody in the court could understand Welsh, and then to pay the interpreter. Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that this has happened in my lifetime in

my own village and has happened in many other parts of Wales?

Mr. Abse: The hon. Gentleman continues to seek out wherever he can instances, real or imagined, to justify his continued paranoiac attitude to the whole of contemporary England and, indeed, to the whole of those Welshmen who are disadvantaged by not speaking Welsh. I shall come to the right hon. Gentleman's attitude if he will have the forbearance to wait.
I turn to current attitudes which have caused me to bring this amendment to the Committee. I have recalled how parents were diffident about encouraging their children to speak Welsh because they feared that it would be a disability which might cut them off from job opportunities. It is true that in my lifetime there has been inevitably a great increase in mobility. That has meant that large numbers of Welsh-speaking people who formerly lived in rural areas, and those living in the valleys who were preponderantly Welsh-speaking, have moved into our cities. In that move they have lost the language.
My own familiar experience is in a sense a paradigm of the general Welsh experience. My elderly mother, who will be 88 this month, can still fall into doubtlessly poor colloquial Welsh when the Welsh-speaking lady who kindly cooks for her comes into the house. My mother was born in Ystalyfera and I was born in Cardiff. Like the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Cardiff—and of Pontypool—we can do little more than sing inadequately in Welsh "Land of my Fathers ".
The attitudes which created this sad and almost catastrophic decline in the Welsh language changed in the post-war years. They changed because people began to realise what a loss was taking place. Even those who had lost the tongue were aware that Wales as a whole would intellectually and culturally impoverish itself by allowing the language totally to peter out. There was an awareness which expressed itself inside this House of Commons.
Certainly, when I came here at the end of 1958, I was keenly aware that within the Welsh parliamentary party—I mean the Welsh parliamentary party belonging to all sides—there was an awareness that


some action was required. Indeed, it was because of the action of hon. Members from all parties who were concerned to try to give greater protection, particularly in the sort of circumstances which the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) recited, that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir Keith Joseph), the former Minister for Welsh Affairs, appointed the Hughes Parry Committee. Its terms of reference made is clear that at least an attempt was being made to turn the tide.
It was the proud privilege of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) eventually to translate some of the recommendations that came out of the Hughes Parry Report. Of course, in a sense the warning signs that have led to the present unhappy situation were already contained in the Hughes Parry Report, because that report wandered far outside its more formal terms of reference.
The Committee will recall that its terms of reference were:
To clarify the legal status of the Welsh language and to consider whether any changes in the law ought to be made.
It was in that sense that my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey, when he introduced the Welsh Language Bill, selected those sections of the Hughes Parry Report which addressed themselves properly to the exact terms of reference so that the Bill was entirely encompassed by those terms of reference and not by the extended terms of reference.
But the Committee at the time, under cover of these terms of reference, had already put forward a whole series of proposals. The one that is most relevant to the amendment that we are discussing is the formal recommendation that heads of Government Departments in Wales should be Welsh-speaking. At the time it was formally recommended that there was a need for Welsh speakers in the Civil Service, that that need should be more widely publicised and that a knowledge of Welsh within the Civil Service should be recognised as an additional qualification of the service. It was recommended that extra allowances should be given.
Of course, the Welsh parliamentary party on all sides at the time expressed its views on those other recommendations

which no doubt echoed the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey who insisted that the Welsh Language Act—which he had the proud privilege of steering through the House—did not create a situation of a kind where English-speaking Welshmen would in effect be barred from ever becoming the head of Civil Service Departments in Wales.
When I say that the attitudes which have created the present unhappy situation were incipient in the Hughes Parry Report, I am giving what is an accurate picture of what has taken place. Of course, the act of reconciliation as it were, which came into existence with the Welsh Language Act, was seen by people like the hon. Member for Carmarthen merely as a placatory gesture. It was not seen—as indeed it was—as a genuine attempt to make certain that there were no divisions between English-speaking Wales and Welsh-speaking Wales. It was seen merely as a trifle, and from the moment that it was past—even when it was going through—Plaid Cymru and its fellow travellers again and again emphasised the inadequacy of a Bill which was a healing Bill which, had it been accepted in the spirit in which it was given, would never have led to the present unhappy situation.
But precisely because Plaid Cymru and its fellow travellers embarked upon campaigns which led to the politicising of the language question in Wales—even after the passing of the Act—we have now reached a situation where, instead of there being a relaxed attitude in the Principality to the language, it is unhappily a matter of bitter and acute controversy.
4.0 p.m.
There has been a campaign which has led to great pressure being applied to ensure that within the terms of that Act as many forms as possible are published in Welsh and English under the discretion available to the Minister. That campaign, by means of lobbying and demonstration, has been pushed to its utmost limits so that upon English-speaking Welshmen there has descended a deluge, a torrent, of Welsh forms which, regrettably, are meaningless to them. They see them not as an attempt to resuscitate the language but as a defiant act of political propaganda.
Because of the existence of a vociferous minority of Welsh-speaking Welshmen,


instead of money being made available genuinely to succour and tend the language, millions of pounds have been squandered in the erection of new signs in English-speaking areas of Wales. In the deluge of forms, in the change of street names, there has been not a genuine tending of the language but a deliberate act of propaganda.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman care to spell out to the Committee what precise measures he believes to be a genuine tending of the language, as he calls it?

Mr. Abse: I have often done so. I have often thought, for example, that instead of millions being spent in Gwent upon silly road signs which irritate my constituents so much, that money could have been spent on language laboratories and upon adult education. If it had been spent on modern methods of teacher training and language training, how much good would have been done and how much good will would have been engendered. Good will was in existence at the time the Act was passed and people were ready to do all they could to remedy the serious decline in the use of the language. It is precisely because of the folly of those who are more interested in the politics of gesture than in preserving the Welsh language that millions of pounds have been squandered in a way which has been counter-productive and which has exacerbated relationships between many English-speaking Welshmen and Welsh-speaking Welshmen, instead of increasing the number of Welshmen who would otherwise have found their way to the Welsh language and, doubtless, to Welsh literature.
What has happened with this politicisation of the language as a result of the intervention of Plaid Cymru and its allies is that there have been demonstrations which have aroused the severe hostility both of English-speaking Welshmen and of sensible Welsh-speaking Welshmen throughout the Principality. The sit-ins, the attacks upon television masts, the misconduct of large groups of people with their mock heroics have caused people to see the Welsh language as identified with an irresponsible group. Unfortunately, Plaid Cymru, instead of condemning those activities, always condoned them. The result is, undoubtedly,

the spreading of a belief that what is intended in areas in the Principality where Plaid Cymru and those of similar beliefs exercise power is that those who lack the advantage of being able to speak Welsh should suffer a disadvantage.
From the constituency of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas)—from Aberystwyth—I have received letters from groups which have been formed describing themselves as language freedom movements, indicating concern that, instead of a heart and mind campaign to convince the people of Wales of the inherent worth of the Welsh language as part of their Welsh heritage, what has been launched as a result of the activities of an irresponsible minority is a campaign that Welsh should be a passport to top jobs or a source of privilege.
There is no doubt that it has been the tendency throughout Wales wherever the influence of Plaid Cymru makes itself felt that, unless anyone who applies for a job can speak Welsh, he does not obtain the job. Never mind what may be the theory and the practice in Gwynedd, it applies also in many other places. Some of us cannot forget the way in which the Welsh BBC gave evidence and expressed its prejudices to the Hughes Parry Committee. We remember how those who were in control of the BBC made clear in a blunt and brutal manner that in their view the only people who could be described as genuinely Welsh were those who were Welsh-speaking, and they used that as a justification for saying to the Hughes Parry Committee that all top tier jobs should be reserved for Welsh speakers.
I am sure that in the course of the debate we shall hear many more instances of the disadvantages suffered by English-speaking Welshmen. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) gave some wretched and rather dramatic instances when he spoke last week. I realise that there is no need for me to catalogue the disadvantages and the fears which have come into existence. We all know about the people charged with offences who, although they can speak English, wish to inconvenience everybody to the maximum degree when they come before the court and insist on speaking Welsh. As a result of these activities, it has become clear throughout Wales that


there is a need for a new assessment of the dangers to the English-speaking Welshmen if these pressure groups are allowed to have their way.
It is unfortunate and unhappy that this has come about. It has not taken place as a consequence of any action on the part of the Labour Party, which initiated the Welsh Language Act. Nor do I believe—and one must give credit where it is due—that it was the result of any action of the Tory Party which set up the Hughes Parry Committee. Neither the Labour Party nor the Tory Party is in any way responsible for the situation. What has occurred as the direct result of fanaticism is that the whole atmosphere in Wales on the language question has been utterly soured.
Every day English-speaking Welshmen are compelled to look at signs they do not understand, look at television they do not understand and listen to the radio in a language they do not understand. All this has resulted from the tactlessness and pressures of a minority. English-speaking Welshmen reluctantly must turn their aerials towards the Mendips and away from the Principality. This is because a small, fanatical and persistent group has brought pressure to bear—and the main spokesman for that group is Plaid Cymru.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Would the hon. Member explain to the Committee how people in Wales who speak only English are unable to understand bilingual road signs?

Mr. Abse: Of course they cannot understand the Welsh. In Gwent nearly the whole population finds itself greeted twice when it arrives in its own county. If the hon. Member for Merioneth thinks that he is helping the Welsh language by insisting to the letter that every road sign must be replaced in this way, he is being extraordinarily jejune. People who cannot understand the language in the place in which they live get irritated and vexed. They do not like to feel that they are being treated like strangers in their own country. They feel that every road sign is a propaganda exercise and not an advertisement. If the hon. Member does not understand that, he betrays a singular lack of sensitivity, particularly for a Welshmen. We are supposed to be

possessed with good reason and with more sensitivity than members of the more buttoned-up and rougher Anglo-Saxon culture.
In this atmosphere of apprehension, the concept of creating a Welsh Assembly immediately alerts a large section of the population which is extremely concerned that if the Assembly comes into existence it should not be what I believe it will become—a gravy train for a Welsh-speaking minority.
It is quite clear that no Welsh Assembly, if it came into existence, would tolerate for long the idea of a shared Civil Service with Whitehall. That was said by the Kilbrandon Commission, and it is self-evident that a Welsh Assembly will not agree to a shared Civil Service. Obviously, tensions would be created each year when the question of the grant arose. It would mean that in that respect, and many others, civil servants would have dual loyalties—to the Assembly and to Whitehall.
4.15 p.m.
The consequence that we must acknowledge in the end is that Wales would face not an extra 1,150 civil servants as indicated in the Bill's preamble, but more likely an extra 2,000. That is the number that would be needed for a totally separate Civil Service. That is predictable and inevitable, and Wales must face the fact that it will have to pay for these extra civil servants.
Who will be included in this Civil Service elite? From which groups will it be drawn and which qualifications will its members need? We can all be certain that Members of the Assembly who come from Plaid Cymru will not be engaged in reconciling action any more than they have been engaged in such reconciling action on the Welsh language since the passing of the 1967 Act. They will use the Assembly to pursue their declared objectives. They will speak in Welsh in the Assembly. When they come to the Assembly announcing this declared intention, there will be immediate difficulties for the Civil Service.
Therefore, members of Plaid Cymru should act in the interests of the whole of the Principality. They should act with restraint, and not expect as of right to speak Welsh. But that will not happen. The hon. Member for Carmarthen has


repeatedly made clear that he will not accept for the Welsh Assembly the rules that apply in the House of Commons and that the intention of his party is to speak Welsh.

Sir Raymond Gower: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and I certainly agree with many parts of his speech. However, is it not likely that the Welsh Assembly will be drawn mostly from areas of greater population and that conceivably the majority of its Members will be English-speaking only? It seems that the hon. Member's point is a bit inconsistent.

Mr. Abse: I agree, but that is not the point. Once there is a minority which insists on speaking Welsh, it will be abundantly clear that the Assembly will need a translating system. It will need the whole apparatus that exists in international assemblies.
I am sure that in the figures for the cost of the Assembly, the £9·5 million given for additional civil servants in Wales will not include provision for extra 800 or 900 civil servants who will be needed or the cost of the sophisticated translation services that will be in operation if the Welsh language is used.
What the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) says is, of course, true. The majority of Welsh Members, like the majority of people in Wales, will be able to speak only English. That is the only language that four out of five of us understand. But the very fact that some—even a tiny minority—would speak in Welsh would necessitate immediately not only the apparatus of translation facilities but also what the Hughes Parry Committee recommended—that heads of Departments in the Assembly would inevitably have to be Welsh-speaking because Wales knows the fanaticism that is now at work. Let it be pursued, as it would be, and it is inevitable that they would want to communicate in Welsh. They would want to speak to the civil servants in Welsh and would want the whole top layer to be that which the Hughes Parry Commission was trying to bring about—that there should be a Welsh-speaking top tier.
That would not be necessary if it were not a minority that were pursuing it, but I am certain that in Wales, given what I regard as the totally extravagant and fanatical attitude of Plaid Cymru, they would neither speak nor write in a language other than Welsh to all the civil servants with whom they had any communication.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure the hon. Member is aware that in mid-Wales many councillors on county councils prefer to speak in Welsh. Is he saying that those who represent mid-Wales and are Welsh-speaking should not have the right to speak in their mother tongue to a Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Abse: The hon. Gentleman is not getting my point. I am not seeking to deny that right. I am pointing out the inevitable and predictable consequences, because the people who are now councillors and speaking Welsh will come into the Assembly and will speak Welsh there, as they are entitled to do. I am asking the hon. Member to face up to this consequence. There are certain consequences and the amendment seeks to draw attention to them. One consequence is that inevitably they will continue to speak in Welsh not only in the Chamber but in all their dealings with officials, as they would probably do now in the area to which the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) has referred.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Mr. Geraint Howells indicated assent.

Mr. Abse: The hon. Gentleman confirms that. That is the inevitable logic of the situation. Therefore, it is clear that if we are not to get a complete jam between the Assemblymen and the civil servants, certainly the whole of the top layer would be required as a condition of their appointment to be Welsh-speaking.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I ask him a simple question? Is he in favour of a Welsh-speaking Assemblyman being able to speak in his mother tongue at a Welsh Assembly? Will the hon. Gentleman answer "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Abse: I am saying "Yes, of course he can do so". I have never suggested


he could not. That is a right which the hon. Member, who has the great advantake of being Welsh-speaking, denies himself in this House but since those Members will exercise that right it is inevitable that the civil servants who will have to deal with them will have to know Welsh. It may be that Plaid Cymru will say "Hurrah".

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am continually in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the junior Minister at the Welsh Office, using Welsh. He will reply to me a couple of weeks later in excellent Welsh because there is within the Welsh Office a large unit of bilingually structured government with bilingual officers and bilingual Ministers.

Mr. Abse: The hon. Gentleman is only showing the corresponding need that would come to total fulfilment inside the Welsh Civil Service where the people who would come to the top could not be expected to depend, in their day-to-day activities, upon some translation unit. It would be expected that it should be possible for them to have direct relationships with the Assemblymen daily.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I do not think that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) puts the position precisely as it is. If an hon. Member writes to me in Welsh, I naturally reply in the same language. If hon. Members write to one of my junior colleagues, as they usually do, in whatever language they see fit, they get from one of my junior colleagues —and this has been agreed by those who made the request—a letter in English which is the language which my hon. Friends prefer and understand; but they get also, as the usual procedure, a copy in Welsh where an hon. Member has requested that. That is precisely the position. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for permitting my intervention.

Mr. Abse: I do not believe for a moment that it would be tolerable to accept the proposal that the Civil Service should be doubled and that for the whole morass of correspondence that would be coming into existence Welsh-speaking people would be available as doubles, so

that business could be expedited, and so that the whole apparatus of Welsh business should proceed. We would then be talking of 4,000 extra civil servants. In practice, it is abundantly clear what is to come into existence, and I am saying that it is inevitable that, certainly in the top tiers, a Welsh-speaking bureaucratic elite will come into existence.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: That would not apply in my own constituency and that of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick). In the county council in his constituency there are only about one-seventh who are Welsh-speaking and nearly all the senior officers are non-Welsh-speaking. In the district council of my constituency, Montgomery, about 20 to 25 per cent. of the district councillors are Welsh-speaking and there are one or two senior officers who are Welsh-speaking but the others are not. It does not follow, therefore, as the hon. Member suggests, that it is inevitable that the top layer will be entirely Welsh-speaking. It is a matter of common sense. In many Welsh constituencies councillors prefer to express themselves in Welsh.

Mr. Abse: If it were a matter of common sense, there would be no difficulty but we have to accept that we shall get not common sense but fanaticism from Plaid Cymru supporters and, as they have always done, they will exercise their right to the limit. Therefore, I repeat that I believe it inevitable and predictable that if we move forward with a Welsh Assembly there will come into existence what the Hughes Parry report wanted, a Welsh-speaking elite.
I am deeply concerned that a young man or young woman living in Newport should have the opportunity, if that is the will in a referendum for Wales, to rise to the top of the Civil Service that will come into existence. I am concerned that no English-speaking Welshman in this Civil Service, if it ever comes about, should be in the slightest degree disadvantaged. I am concerned that any young man or woman from Cardiff or Pontypool, any of those coming from the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales who speak no Welsh, should have equal opportunity, which I believe is inevitably to be denied them.
Because of that, I have directed my mind to how we can contain the fanaticism, how we can contain the sixth dynamic which uses language for politics, not in order that we should enlarge the knowledge of the people of Wales and give them the key to a separate culture which unhappily is denied for most. How can we contain it? I do not suggest that my method is necessarily the best or the only one, but there is a fundamental principle at work, and it is so fundamental that I would not have anything against Clause 25 if it were modified and altered sufficiently to give to the people of Newport, Cardiff and Pontypool protection and a feeling of security that they will not find themselves very largely in the hands of a Welsh-speaking elite.
Consequences will flow from that. There is this elusive belief that the Assembly will be determining the nominations for the nominated bodies. We shall have untried and untested Assemblymen and as usual, particularly at the beginning, we shall have a more sophisticated Civil Service. Who will be appointed to the nominated bodies? The lists now prepared and maintained in every Government Department will be prepared and maintained by the Assembly civil servants. It is not only a question of preference being shown within the Civil Service to the Welsh-speaking; it is that the preference will extend further.
4.30 p.m.
We are dealing here with a major problem. We shall have a situation in which we shall have created an Assembly which will have no full career structure for young men and women who have no knowledge of the language.
What action can the Committee take? My amendment is tough. It says:
in no circumstances shall it be regarded as appropriate that any person be not appointed in any role as an officer or servant of the Assembly because of lack of knowledge of Welsh".
We want to ensure that people are judged on their merits and not on whether they are Welsh-speaking or English-speaking. If we are to have this Civil Service, this swollen bureaucracy, we must see that it is a meritocracy. We must ensure that those appointed are appointed solely by reason of their capacity. It must not depend upon the fact that they were born

in a particular area of the Principality and were brought up speaking Welsh.

Sir Raymond Gower: A consideration might arise when there are two senior civil servants of comparable ability, attainment and experience. In such circumstances one might be fluent in English and Welsh and the other only in English. Might it then be that a knowledge of the language could be deemed to be a fair advantage? This is the difficult situation in which we might find ourselves. Could the person not appointed go to the courts and seek damages under this amendment?

Mr. Abse: Let there be no doubt about my position on this issue. If there are two boys from Newport or Pontypool, equal in merit and capacity, who seek an appointment in the Civil Service, the fact that one speaks Welsh should in no way influence the decision. I say that categorically. If we do not say that in every instance where appointments are to be made, it will be said, as it is said in the advertisements that we see throughout the Principality, that Welsh will be an advantage. That would clearly mean that in such circumstances the English-speaking Welshman is disadvantaged and is not accorded parity of esteem.
I come to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. A person who did not gain the appointment could not go to the courts and seek spuriously to claim that he was not appointed because he did not speak Welsh. There would be a heavy onus upon him to prove his case. The balance of probabilities would be measured, as it is in every court action. It would not be easy for a person to go to the courts frivolously. My object is not to increase litigation but to make certain that it is understood by those engaged in making appointments that if they take advantage of the English-speaking Welshman in that way, there is a remedy open to the man or woman disadvantaged.
I put this amendment to the Committee with some sadness, because it is unfortunate that the fanaticism that has raged on the language question throughout Wales should have created an atmosphere in which every English-speaking Welshman is alerted to the hazards which will arise once we create an Assembly of this kind. Sadly, but firmly, I put it to the Committee that it cannot pass Clause 25 without disadvantaging the


English-speaking Welshman unless, either through this amendment or in some other way, protection is given to the people of Gwent and Glamorgan and all the other mainly English-speaking areas of Wales, so that they do not become aliens in their own land, governed by people who are remote from their language, which is a lively vital English, which undoubtedly receives a lot of its élan because the Anglo-Welsh reflects some of the pristine vitality of the Welsh language itself, which they do not know.
I hope that no one will have the presumption to repeat what has been said about my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty and me. It is impertinent to say that we are anti-Welsh. The people who are anti-Welsh are the fanatics who have created the situation in Wales today in which, instead of friendliness being exhibited towards the maturing of the Welsh language, there is grave suspicion. The enemies of the Welsh culture have proven to be those who have so fanatically waged their campaigns, sometimes by lawful methods, sometimes by lawlessness.
I hope that I have introduced a subject to which the Committee will give its mind in seeking a solution and enabling protection to be given where it is needed. If it is not given and if there is no desire or will on the part of the Government to help by accepting this amendment or some other amendment which will give the required protection, I hope that Clause 25 will be rejected.

Mr. Hooson: I want to make a short contribution to the debate. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said that he did not use extravagant language. I wonder what he is like when he is extravagant. I think that he has done a great disservice to Wales today, because he has given the impression of being as bigoted as the people he accuses of being bigoted.
This is a difficult problem. It is difficult because of the history of Wales. There was a determined effort, which the hon. Member rightly described, to stamp out the Welsh language in Tudor times. An odd thing about the Welsh language is that it survived very well in adversity. It is in far greater danger of being killed off by kindness in our age than by adversity in Tudor times.
The truth is that there were very sad consequences of the Tudor settlement, such as the divorce of the common people of Wales from what used to be the aristocracy of Wales, many of whom followed the Tudors to London or became Anglicised in Wales and consequently deprived Wales, when there was no education for the masses, of the cultural leadership which it would otherwise have had and which it had enjoyed at an earlier period.
The Welsh language was undermined, to use the language of Socialism, by the effects of capitalism in the nineteenth century. Economic pressure was allied to deliberate policy. I have read of monoglot English-speaking teachers being appointed to totally Welsh-speaking districts in order to ensure that the Welsh children could not communicate with their teachers, except in English. It was a determined effort to stamp out the Welsh language for so-called economic interest.
Even in this century, I have known in fairly modern times of a headmaster of a school in a Welsh-speaking village who would teach no Welsh. I have also known a headmaster of a school in a Welsh-speaking village who would teach no English. Last week I heard of a school in Wales in which the music teacher refused to play "God save the Queen" at the end of the school Eisteddfod. I do not know what right she has to impose her political views on the pupils. In the same school, one master reacted to that by refusing to stand up for "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadan" the Welsh national anthem. The bigots on either side of the Committee, like the bigots in Wales, do not benefit our country at all.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hooson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
The hon. Member for Pontypool gave a very good account of the vicissitudes of the Welsh language. If somebody had said 10 or 15 years ago "Here is £15 million that you can spend for the benefit of the Welsh language", I should not have dreamt of spending it on road signs. But if the hon. Member is honest with himself, would he have voted £15 million to help the lame Welsh language 15 years ago? The answer is that he would not. He would have suggested better ways of


spending that money than for the Welsh language. But that is by the way.

Mr. Kinnock: In order to put it in perspective and since the language argument is surrounded by so much historical allusion, would it not be more correct to say that, with the exception of one instance by well-intentioned but ludicrously uninformed and misinformed commissioners of education in the middle of the last century, the great crime committed against the Welsh language was not deliberate suppression but the assertion that, under an imperialist system, English was so vastly superior that it deserved to reign over any other culture—Welsh, Indian or whatever it may be—that the Imperial British system encountered throughout the world? Does that not put it in a slightly different perspective when we bring the argument up to date, which is what we should be concerned with?

Mr. Hooson: I do not altogether go along with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). There were mainly economic reasons for the effective decline of the Welsh language. It was a matter of the dominant culture and the dominant economy being English, and there were obvious consequences from it. However, we should not hark back all the time to Welsh history to determine what we should do today.
4.45 p.m.
Part of the area that I represent became entirely English-speaking about two centuries or more ago. Part of my constituency—the Banw valley—is entirely Welsh-speaking. I presided at an Eisteddfod in the Banw valley in December last year. One of the adjudicators, who was a lecturer at the University of Bangor, told me that in his view the Banw valley was probably the most Welsh part of Wales because everything is conducted entirely in Welsh. I know that it is a relatively small area. My constituency varies from entirely English-speaking areas such as Church Stoke and Hyssington on the border, where one can almost feel the shades of the Marcher Lords going by, to the Banw valley which derives its culture entirely from the old Welsh background.
As I said in an intervention, about one-quarter or one-fifth of my constituents at present are Welsh-speaking. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Pontypool is suggesting that in elected bodies of this

kind it is inevitable that the top echelon as it were, of public servants must be Welsh-speaking, that is wrong. It is contrary to my experience. Most of the senior officers on my district or county council are not Welsh-speaking. For example, the director of education is not Welsh-speaking, but the deputy-director of education is Welsh-speaking.
This matter of language should be left to the common sense of the elected Members of the Assembly. I have enough faith in my fellow countrymen to believe that they will be fair, just and sensible. The Committee should not try to impose any kind of rules on the Welsh Assembly.
The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) rightly pointed out that when a Welsh Assembly is elected its Members will largely be from the industrial areas, which are largely non-Welsh-speaking. We have to assume, as in the House of Commons, that the elected Members will represent the broad linguistic pattern of Wales. Therefore, the majority of Assembly men and women will not be Welsh-speaking. It should be left entirely to those elected representatives to lay down the proper rules. In my view, nobody should be disadvantaged merely because of either knowledge or lack of knowledge of the Welsh language.
There are certain jobs in which it is essential for people to be Welsh-speaking. In the Diplomatic Service, as the hon. Member well knows, it is considered to be a considerable advantage to be able to speak another language or two or three languages. There are merit awards for this. If the hon. Member, by the slant of his speech, was suggesting that the Welsh Assembly will be unfair to non-Welsh-speaking people, he is insulting the country which he represents.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) can before the end of the debate be persuaded to withdraw his amendment. That would be the right and the helpful thing for him to do in the circumstances.
As my hon. Friend recognised in the early part of his speech, which I found unexceptionable, the Welsh language has survived for many centuries against the most formidable odds. Only in recent years, however, has it received some encouragement and recognition. It is part of our inheritance, and those of us who were brought up to speak the language


cherish it. Some hon. Members—the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) and I—speak it at home. Our children speak it. It is our everyday language. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool said that it is an accident of birth, but it remains the fact. Therefore, anyone who, even by implication, criticises the Welsh language, says something which is hurtful to us.
Those of us who do speak Welsh are a diminishing minority. We are conscious of the great task and responsibility of preserving the language and of handing it on to our children and to our children's children. Nothing arouses more emotion than language, save possibly religion. The majority in an elected Assembly of any kind in Wales would inevitably be non-Welsh-speaking Members, as is the case in the House of Commons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool referred to the recommendations in the Hughes Parry Report. The existence of those recommendations does not, in my view, justify the amendment. I think that there was only one major recommendation in that report which I rejected. That was the one to which my hon. Friend referred. Nevertheless, that recommendation reflected the profound concern of the members of that Committee about the future of the language. As I recall, the members of the Hughes Parry Committee were not associated with any political party. The chairman—the late Sir David Hughes Parry—was one of the most distinguished academic lawyers in this country.
Having considered the report carefully and consulted hon. Members, I had to make a judgment. My judgment was translated into a Bill which is now the Welsh Language Act. I felt that the Bill, as drafted at the time, would command the widest measure of support in Wales, and I think that events have confirmed that conclusion.

Mr. Abse: My right hon. Friend is doing himself an injustice. It is some time since the Act came into effect. If he would care to refresh his memory by looking at the long list of recommendations which were not embodied in the Act, he would see that a whole range of recommendations are relevant to what we are discussing. For example, if those

recommendations had been implemented, magistrates, policemen and health administrators would have had to have been bilingual. The dangers which were then apparent were avoided by the limited measure that was brought in by my right hon. Friend. I do not want to catalogue all the recommendations. However, my right hon. Friend is misleading himself in believing that all he ignored was the recommendation relating to top civil servants.

Mr. Hughes: I do not agree with the point that my hon. Friend was trying to make in that long intervention. He gave a list of examples. I said it was the principle that I rejected, and it was the principle to which he referred in his speech. I rejected that and accepted the remainder.
There are those who take an extreme view on both sides of the argument. They do not help to preserve the language, however genuine they may be. Long experience of this subject has persuaded me that that is so.
The fact is that at the end of the day any Assembly would reflect its Members and they in turn would reflect their constituents. Any expenditure on the language should properly be a matter for the Assembly. I should be content to leave the matter to its judgment. It is unhelpful to make a bogy of the Welsh language. It is no service whatsoever to the Principality to give the impression that it might somehow threaten the livelihoods of people.
I make this point without passion and as reasonably as I can. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool knows perfectly well, as does the Committee, that the majority of those who reside in Glamorgan, Gwent, the Wrexham area, Deeside and in most of Brecon and Radnor are non-Welsh-speaking people. It is sad. I regret it, because I think that in all our great cultural inheritance the language is its heart and treasure. Therefore, I regret it, but I have to accept it as the bleak reality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool implied that in an election, somehow or other a small minority would impose their will regarding the language on the majority of the Assembly and of the people of Wales. I think that my


hon. Friend went too far. He asked who will be the civil servants. The answer is that they will reflect the whole of Wales, as they do now.
If we analyse the Civil Service as it now exists in Cardiff and, as to a small section, in Aberystwyth, the fact is that the great majority of civil servants now come from Glamorgan and Gwent. Aberystwyth has the Welsh Office of the Department of Agriculture, for which I was at one time responsible. The head of the Department of Agriculture today, who is a distinguished agriculturist, is in fact an Englishman from the North-East. We in Wales who have to deal with agriculture matters greatly value him. If there were some conspiracy to impose the language on Wales, would we have an Englishman in one of the Welsh centres as head of a Government Department? I do not think so. He was made very welcome, as was right. I make that point to demonstrate that much of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool is without foundation.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am grateful for and appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's views. He is apparently assuming that we shall necessarily continue to have a unified Civil Service so that, for example, Englishmen can move easily to Wales and vice versa. I think that is a great advantage. But the Welsh TUC and a Labour Party paper on the subject take a contrary view. It is at least a possibility—I put it no higher— that the Assembly will take a contrary view. Has the right hon. Gentleman any opinion on that important matter?

Mr. Hughes: Yes, I have. I believe in interchangeability. I think that service in Whitehall would be of great advantage to any civil servants who might subsequently move to Cardiff or elsewhere in Wales. But we shall have to discuss these matters in detail in due course.
Finally, what would be wrong if some of the Members of the Assembly chose to speak in Welsh? My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool was ready enough to admit that there would be nothing out of place with that. But if we resisted the right of a Welshman in his own country to speak his own language in a national Assembly, we would be more

intolerant than any country on earth, including the Soviet Union.
My hon. Friend dealt with the question of translators. Translation systems exist not only in this and other countries. The expenditure involved in providing a translation system for a Welsh Assembly would be negligible. I do not think that anyone would object to it. In fact, it has operated in Wales in county councils for a long time.
We require two qualities in our consideration of this sensitive issue—namely, tolerance and common sense. It would not be necessary, for example, for all civil servants to know Welsh. English is now the normal language of communication. What we require is the right to use the Welsh language as and when it is necessary, as and when we wish to do so.
I hope that we can end this debate fairly soon. I do not find it an edifying one.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: I largely agree with the general viewpoint of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), although I do not entirely agree that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) should not have raised the matter. It is proper that we should debate and discuss an issue of this sort.
Unfortunately, language in several parts of the world is an incandescent subject which causes much controversy. I shall never forget the unbelievable scenes of disorder in Belgium that arose from conflict betwen the adherents of those who speak French and those who speak the type of Dutch that is spoken in the North of Belgium. There was unbelievable disorder and fighting in the streets on what would seem to non-Belgians to be a matter of fairly small importance. Similarly, we know that there has been a good deal of animosity in Canada between those who speak French and those who speak English. There has been much animosity in South Africa between those who speak Afrikaans and those who speak English. It seems that language can cause trouble.
I agree with the hon. Member for Pontypool that some of the fears that he has expressed are expressed in our constituencies. Certainly that applies in parts of Wales. We should do all in our power to allay those fears.
Those who express their anxiety about the future of the Welsh language by raiding BBC establishments do much harm to their cause. They do not assist the future of the Welsh language. They develop animosity whereas they should be trying to develop support. I agree that the money that has been spent on signs and forms could have more profitably been spent on language laboratories and on special forms of further education in the Welsh language.
There are feelings of anxiety in this area. It is a delicate area in which misunderstanding is so easy. I understand why the hon. Member for Pontypool entertains real fears. I hope that the debate will go some way to lessen those fears in his mind and in the minds of us all.
The fact is that the great majority in the Principality are English-speaking. It seems probable that for a long time in future the Assembly, whatever form it takes, will contain a large majority of Members who cannot speak Welsh. They will be an English-speaking monoglot. For the most part, they would be English speakers.
The concept of a Welsh Assembly, as the hon. Gentleman says, increases the fears that he has explained to the Committee. However, I cannot see that the amendment as worded would deal with his fears. The amendment reads:
but in no circumstances shall it be regarded as appropriate that any person be not appointed in any role as an officer or servant of the Assembly because of lack of knowledge of Welsh and if any person fails to secure a post as such an officer or servant because of his lack of knowledge of Welsh then he shall have … cause of action.
It can be imagined that there will be those with similar length of service in the Civil Service at high level who have similar qualifications and experience. If one is rejected, he might well make it a case that he was rejected solely because he was not a Welsh speaker and that the person who was appointed was given the appointment because he was a Welsh speaker. Many bogus cases could be founded in that way. I do not think that the amendment could achieve what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Is the amendment desirable in its present form? Having listened to the debate, I have serious doubts. I believe that it

would be misinterpreted. If the dangers increase and if the future as the hon. Gentleman sees it is not exaggerated, we shall have to review our attitudes. However, at present I am not satisfied that the majority who are trying to revive the language share the views of the extremists.
Many of those who are working so hard in my constituency and in other areas on behalf of the Welsh language have a genuine wish to prevent the language from dying out altogether. At some personal inconvenience, and at considerable expense, they are ensuring that their children learn the Welsh language. I know of parents who drive their children long distances so that they may learn the language. They are not extremists. They deplore the extravagances that the hon. Gentleman has described. They deplore the raiding of premises. They deplore the invasion of studios, the shouting in courts of law and the plastering of buildings with slogans. At the same time they are devoting a great deal of time, concern and work to prevent a living language from dying.
In that context and with that background I believe that the hon. Gentleman has done a service and not a disservice by initiating the debate. These are matters that we must debate frankly. They are not to be brushed under the carpet. It would be most undesirable if that were to happen. I hope, trust and believe that the hon. Gentleman's fears are exaggerated. Indeed, they are exaggerated. I hope that we shall be able to do without this sort of provision, which I do not think would achieve the objects that it is intended to bring about.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Mae hon yn ddadl bwysig—this is an important debate. I understand that it is an important debate, which I enter as an Englishman. I was trying to speak in Welsh because I understand what Welsh speakers feel and recognise that we talk about language with emotion. If I were Welsh, I should want to retain my Welsh language. I should want my children to retain the language and I should want their children to retain it. It would be like lopping off an arm or a limb to have one's language destroyed. I begin my argument from that standpoint.
I am not certain that we are not getting two arguments mixed up. I am not certain whether the argument about the


Welsh language is necessarily totally a part of the argument about devolution. Devolution is one thing and the retention and development of one's language is something totally different. Of course, both issues are allied in a sense.
I have been worried because the Welsh language is being turned into a political football. There has been growing fanaticism over the years, certainly among some of the more extreme Welsh nationalists—but fanaticism among English speakers in Wales would be equally wrong. As an Englishman, I urge tolerance. Many people in Wales rightly wish to retain and develop their Welsh language, but many others do not, and probably never will, speak Welsh.
The concept of bilingualism is not a bad one. It might have been a good thing if we in Liverpool had been properly taught Welsh, French and a number of other languages. When one understands someone else's language, one can not only communicate properly but can begin to understand his ideas. A nation's ideas are bound up with its language. I should therefore like to see tolerance. That is why I am not entirely happy with the amendment, although parts of it are important.
Supposing an Englishman moved into a Welsh town and was properly qualified to become an officer of the Assembly; it would be quite wrong to deny him the opportunity. No one is suggesting that, and I trust that no one ever will. I do not know whether that protection can be written into the Bill, but it will have to be understood that qualified people, from wherever they come, should have equal rights to jobs.

Mr. William Molloy: My hon. Friend's argument is attractive, but one could go further. The Secretary of State listed those Welsh counties where the English language predominates. As things stand, there is a danger that a Welshman born and bred could be penalised because he did not speak Welsh fluently enough. This does not apply only to Englishmen in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Heffer: I was trying to introduce an English dimension. I have listened to the Welsh argue the case and have not seen much evidence of the tolerance which

would be shown in a purely English debate. We English are a very tolerant people, otherwise, we should not be trodden on as much as we sometimes are, particularly lately in this House. We now have debates about Scotland and Wales that seem to go on for ever. I sometimes wish that we might have a debate on problems of the English regions, which have high levels of unemployment and difficult problems. But that is not this debate, and I apologise for straying into the subject.
I agree with the Secretary of State that it is unhelpful to make a bogy of the Welsh language. We must keep a balance. Those of us who do not live in Wales, and who would never come in contact with Welsh people if we were not Members of Parliament, should not destroy the language of the Welsh people. We must help it to continue to exist.
But those Welsh people must in turn accept that there are vast areas of Wales where Welsh is never spoken. Those areas must have equal rights. What we need is tolerance and acceptance. I hope that this matter does not develop into a bitter internal battle in Wales. That would be unhelpful.
5.15 p.m.
I get slightly upset with the Welsh nationalists, especially those who used to blow up Liverpool's water supplies. That was very annoying, and it deprived the enormous number of Welsh people in Liverpool of their water as well.
The confusion of the devolution debate is summed up in the words of landlord Ken Williams of the "Castle" Hotel, Shotton, who, referring to a previous speech of mine, said:
I am a Welshman and proud of it, but Wales couldn't survive on its own.
Absolutely right.
Eric Heffer does not know anything about it.
I do not think that that is right.
They should leave us well alone. I don't see any benefit in devolution or in becoming linked to Merseyside.
That sums up the total confusion which now exists. To use Mr. Williams' words, it might be a good thing if the whole business were left alone.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am glad to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and


I am grateful to him for seeking to cool undue passions. I shall not become impassioned by his references to water supplies because my constituency still supplies his people in Liverpool. Nor shall I go into the historical background of that question.
This amendment and earlier speeches by opponents of devolution in the Labour Party show a regrettable willingness to stir up false fears. Some of us who support the Assembly have been accused of raising false expectations, but it is equally wrong to raise false fears.
On Thursday, the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who, regrettably, is not here at the moment, referred to Gwynedd County Council, but so far has not substantiated his allegations, as he said he would. I hope that those allegations about the treatment of school-children in Gwynedd will not be repeated today and that there will not be similar allegations about job prospects for young people in any part of Wales when the Assembly is in operation.
In fact, devolution will enable us to exercise equality for both language groups in Wales. Within the Assembly we shall have for the first time a national forum which will be able to debate language policy within Wales, to take an all-Wales perspective towards language policy, and to develop that policy with the support of the majority of the population.
Contrary to what has been suggested by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and others, I do not believe that there is hysterical opposition to measures aimed at stimulating and restoring the Welsh language within Wales. Indeed, all the surveys undertaken on education policy by the Schools Council, by education authorities and by the University College of Swansea into parental attitudes towards the teaching of Welsh as a second language and as a medium of instruction has thrown up the information that in cities such as Swansea and in the Valley areas a significant majority, amounting to as much as 60 per cent. in some areas, is in favour of maintaining the language as the national language of Wales and in favour of its being taught to children in schools.
The impression that somehow English-speaking Wales is up in arms, or in great fear, or hostile to what might happen because of the consequences of devolution, and the impression put about by the hon. Member for Pontypool that the Language Freedom Movement in Aberystwyth has mass popular support, is false and should be corrected.
We in Wales are not in a situation of exacerbated linguistic conflict. Our duty in the House is to resolve any potential conflict through effective measures rather than by seeking to stir up that conflict deliberately.

Mr. Ioan Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) referred to the criminal and illegal activities of those who are trying to bring the language issue to the fore by destroying road signs and breaking into television and radio stations. Will the hon. Gentleman and his party condemn those illegal activities, which do nothing to enhance the Welsh language?

Mr. Thomas: Plaid Cymru has made its position clear on illegal activities. As a party we do not resort to such activities. I do not believe that illegal activities should be engaged in in place of specific political action. The reason why young people in Wales have resorted to illegal forms of action lies in their frustration and feeling of alienation within the political system in Britain that the Government of the day are not being sufficiently responsive. I do not want to be drawn too greatly on that point for fear of being out of order, but I believe that the continuing delay by the Government in implementing the fourth channel only exacerbates that frustration.
Let me return to the amendment. The hon. Member for Pontypool was anxious to separate the language from politics. He accused us in Plaid Cymru and our fellow-travellers, as he called them, of politicising the language issue. There is often a call for such-and-such an issue to be taken out of politics. I have heard leading Opposition Front Benchers say that the Health Service, educational policy and agriculture should be taken out of politics. But the truth is that nothing that is within the realms of public policy can be taken out of politics because politics is the forum in which decisions are taken and in which priorities are allocated.
I should not like to see the Welsh language taken out of politics; I want to see it firmly rooted in politics. I should like to see every political party with a cogently argued language policy and the Welsh Assembly as the political forum for the language policy of Wales.
If the hon. Member for Pontypool studies Hansard tomorrow, he will see that the images he used about the continuing existence of the Welsh language were ones better associated with the survival of a hothouse plant. He talked about nurturing and of special measures to protect the situation. That attitude of isolating the language as a cultural phenomenon to be protected is false.
We in Wales must accept that the Welsh language has its full place in our public life. That means that there should be a policy involving the restoration of language status. That is what the argument is about, namely, how best to restore the status of the language in the public life of Wales. It is not a case of separating language; it is a matter of taking the language as a part of the political structure of Wales and of seeing how, within the economic, planning, educational and social policies, it is possible to ensure that the language is gradually restored as the language of the majority of the population.
That is my declared objective. It can be achieved only with the good will of the majority of the population. It can be achieved most effectively by ensuring public status for the language and access to the language in the media, film making and other spheres of activity, and by ensuring that the educational system provides an opportunity for all children to be taught Welsh. That can be achieved without a coercive policy, because such a policy would be counter productive. We must have the majority of non-Welsh speaking people with us in seeking to develop the creative and cultural resources of our nation. We must devise a system of public policy which can restore the language and which is not coercive.
I wish to remind the House that attempts have been made in other countries to achieve this end. Opponents of an effective language policy tend to argue as though the position in Wales and the bilingual situation there were unique. That is not the case. Bilingualism is the

rule rather than the exception in most of the developed and the under-developed world. Most States are bilingual. The problem of bilingual administration exists throughout the multilingual institutions.
It has been implied that it will be the Welsh speakers who will be given the top jobs. The same argument was used about French speakers in the EEC. It was said that because the Continentals were multilingual they, rather than the British, would obtain those top jobs. That is not what the argument is about. We in Wales must work towards a system of institutional bilingualism which does not imply individual bilingualism.

Mr. Heffer: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman in many of his arguments, and there is a certain amount of merit in his speech. However, he must agree that there should be no discrimination against people who do not know the Welsh language, or indeed against people who do not speak the English language. That was the important point that I was trying to make. I was seeking to say that, although I agree that it would be a good thing to extend facilities to ensure that more and more people are able to learn and understand Welsh, it is the discriminatory aspect of the matter which some people fear.

Mr. Thomas: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's intervention. We in Plaid Cymru have often argued that there should be a linguistic ombudsman or commissioner of some kind to whom complaints about discrimination could be made and adjudged within the context of the Assembly. That matter could be fully debated on the Assembly floor. That would be done within that forum, and I hope that the democratic rights of all groups can be fully protected.

Mr. Kinnock: How does the hon. Gentleman propose to safeguard the situation against action taken by zealots who use their linguistic prejudices against people or children who are not in a position to defend themselves? How will the people involved be able to redress their grievances without risk of further victimisation or bullying of some description? This is the difficulty into which we get as a consequence of the zealous pursuit of linguistic racialism. I am sure that the hon. Member wishes to avoid that as much as I do.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Thomas: I shall attempt to remain within the rules of order. I reject utterly, as I did on Thursday, the words "linguistic racialism".

Mr. Kinnock: That is what it is.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member's allegations have not been substantiated. Grievances can be redressed through the normal democratic procedures by complaining to the authorities. Parliament has given them power to implement policies and complaints can be made to them.
I hope that the Assembly will consider the case for having a linguistic ombudsman for Wales such as exist in other bilingual States. That would mean that an independent assessment could be made by both sides of cases of alleged discrimination. It would ensure one effective focus, and representations could be made to such a person.

Mr. Abse: Would the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) insist that the ombudsman was Welsh-speaking? Would he insist that the ombudsman's staff was Welsh-speaking? Would the ombudsman also be someone who could not be drawn from the English-speaking people? Once one talks of an ombudsman a dilemma is created involving both him and his staff.

Mr. Thomas: If I were responsible for appointing him I should give priority to a Belgian or a Canadian, who would have a great deal of experience in cases of this kind.

Mr. Kinnock: In the event of that Belgian, Canadian or Swahilian coming to settle in Wales to exercise such duties, what would he do about sending his children to school? I have evidence that discrimination is practised in some schools. Would it not be most extraordinary if difficulties were encountered by that man or woman's children and they were therefore discouraged from making a home in Wales to contribute to the good management of Wales? We are talking about kids.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member for Bedwellty continues to allude to the debate that we had on Thursday. I hope that a linguistic ombudsman from Belgium or Canada who would settle in Wales would be able to take advantage of the

education policies in South Glamorgan. They would allow his children to learn Welsh. We have teachers who are as good members of trade unions as the hon. Member who pursue their profession in a sensitive way that ensures that there is no discrimination against children. The hon. Member for Bedwellty makes allegations and takes advantage of the privilege of the House of Commons. He should either convey those allegations to the right quarter or withdraw them.
The problem about operating a system of institutional bilingualism arises on the question whether to employ bilingual individuals. It is clear to me that the only Welsh-speaking elite will be the translators who will have highly responsible and well-paid jobs and who will have to work long hours in the Assembly. That is the only elite that the Assembly needs. They will be able to make simultaneous translations of debates and translate documents, as they do now.
If a Welsh-speaking constitutent writes to me about housing, for example, I write a letter in Welsh to the Undersecretary of State who is responsible for Welsh housing. That letter is then translated in the translation unit of the Welsh Office and sent to the housing division. A reply is drafted in English, signed by the Minister, and a translation is sent to me. I am then able to reply to my constituent in the language of his choice. That is how it works now. I see no reason why that kind of effective bilingualism cannot work in the Assembly.
The answers to many of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Pontypool are within the technology of bilingualism as practised in many multilingual and international institutions. It is odd that someone who is familiar with international politics should raise this issue in the context of the Welsh Assembly. The Knesset and the Parliaments of Belgium and Canada are bilingual, and the European Community is multilingual. Throughout the world these problems have been resolved. The suggestion that they cannot be resolved in Wales marks a failure to recognise that the Welsh people are able to resolve and reconcile any language tensions as well as, if not better than, other bilingual institutions in the world.
Why is this issue being raised now? It is not being raised on its merits; it is


being raised as yet another smoke screen, yet another red herring, "un sgwarnog arall"— yet another hare, in the devolution debate. It is an attempt to cloud the whole issue in emotionalism and an attempt not to have a rational debate about the merits of the Assembly. It is an attempt to raise false fears.

Mr. Fred Evans: Can the hon. Member seriously blame hon. Members for treating the Assembly in this way when he and his hon. Friends are openly stating that they see the Assembly as a stepping stone to the greater goal of Welsh independence?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) is trying to lead me out of order. We had a long debate on the legislative powers of the Assembly. I have made clear that we cannot move forward at a more rapid pace than the Welsh people demand. That is our position. It has always been our position. Suggestions of its being a stepping stone or a slippery slope are not relevant. We are talking about the powers of an elected body.
This argument is being used deliberately to cloud the issue in emotionalism. It is an attempt to prevent us having a rational discussion. I well remember the strong and stirring speech by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) in Denbigh. He said that all "North Walians"—I do not know what breed of man a Walian is—would be dominated by the terrible Socialists from the Valleys if we had an Assembly. He said that the Welsh-speaking minority in the Denbigh constituency would be dominated by the English-speaking Socialist majority of the Valleys.
The same sort of argument, inversely presented, has been used by the hon. Member for Pontypool. He suggests that somehow 500,000 of us who are bilingual, whether by accident of birth or parental choice, will be able to dominate 2·7 million people in Wales. This kind of minority-bashing to which the hon. Member is reverting does no service to the devolution argument, and sometimes when I hear his more hysterical utterances in Wales and on Welsh television I suspect that he is verging closely upon the kind of minority-bashing that has been indulged in recently by the Leader

of the Opposition and which I and my party abhor.

Mr. Kinnock: Appeals have been made in the debate, first by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) for tolerance, and, secondly, by my right hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) for common sense. I think that that is the best way to conduct the whole argument that has developed about the present, future and past of the Welsh language. I shall leave aside the issue of the past for the purposes of this speech, although I suspect that we shall have to return to it, reluctantly, on future occasions. I shall concentrate on the present and the future in the context of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse).
As my hon. Friend said, the great regret is that there should be any obligation to put down such an amendment. The only reason for that is the experience we have of the way in which the devolution argument has developed and of the way in which nationalism has advanced. I refer not to the proportion of the vote that the nationalists hold in Wales, because that is stagnating. Neither do I refer to the influence that the nationalists can have in planning the future of the Welsh people. I refer to it in terms of the reverberative effect of their advance on the attitudes of people in the Labour movement and elsewhere in Wales.
We have said that in the event of an Assembly being established in Cardiff—a highly unlikely event, given that there will be a referendum in which the people of Wales will make their opinion known—we are conscious of the fact that the whole process of slip, slide, slither, appeasement and concession, the process of acceptance of nationalism, or at least its tokens, could mean that people were actually denied employment or posts which on the basis of merit they could command, simply because they did not have a mastery of the Welsh language. Where Welsh is of direct and positive advantage in a job, where it is a necessary tool of the Governmental trade, where it is necessary in order clearly to communicate with the people in the two main tongues of Wales—Welsh and English—it should be understood that in


competition for a post advantage would be awarded to those fluent in both languages.
I do not think that that goes much further than what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. The fact remains, however, that we have to try to insert an assurance, a guarantee, that that power, that necessity, that entirely logical and sensitive and sensible way of conducting the whole policy of appointment, cannot be abused.
It has been said that there is an immense paradox—that those who support our argument are saying simultaneously that there is a danger of linguistic dictation by the nationalists but that the Assembly will be predominantly inhabited by people who are representative of the monoglot Anglicised areas. I do not see any paradox in that. Again, I say that within the context of our experience of the way in which the argument for devolution has advanced.
5.45 p.m.
I give full credit to my comrades in the Labour movement who have advanced ideas and presented methods of devolution. But they recognise that the people of Wales acknowledge that we are not here discussing this Bill because of the force of the principle rehearsed by my comrades in the Labour movement or because of pressures imposed by the Welsh people or the demands articulated by the Labour movement in favour of a decentralised system of government. We are here for the entirely separate and different reason of political appeasement and convenience. If we can introduce proposals for an immense constitutional change on the basis of such a tiny tail wagging such a huge dog, it does not require a leap of the imagination to envisage a situation in which the Assembly, totally dominated by English speakers, will be wagged, again by the force of embarrassment, by that very tiny tail.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I understand my hon. Friend now to say that the Government in all these policies are impelled by pressures from, inter alia, Plaid Cymru. Does he not appreciate that the traditions in which I was brought up—the same goes for many of my hon. Friends—derive from the arguments of

the pioneers of the Labour movement itself? When I came into politics in the 1930s I was much influenced by the manifesto laid before the nation in 1929 and by theses on the subject of devolution propounded not only by Henderson and Hardie but by many other leaders of the Labour Party. Therefore, however defective my hon. Friend may believe the Bill to be, what we are doing has a perfectly respectable antecedent in the Labour movement, an antecedent which may be underlined and spoken to at length by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley).

Mr. Walter Padley: May I intervene briefly on that point? Without going back to ancient history, it is worth recalling that in the middle 'fifties S. O. Davies, the then Member for Merthyr Tydfil, introduced his Government of Wales Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) voted for it. I did not. Aneurin Bevan spoke against it. James Griffiths wound up against it. Let us get the history straight. I abstained because although I personally would have voted for it, my constituents were not of that opinion at that time. I endorse what my right hon. Friend says. There is a long and honourable tradition in the Welsh, British and international Socialist movements for measures of this kind, and probably for more advanced measures than this.

Mr. Kinnock: I recognise entirely what my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have said about the hallowed antecedents for the whole proposition not for devolution but for Home Rule, as advocated in the Labour movement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey would be the last man to retreat from the realities of those, whether in the proposals of the forties or the twenties, or of an earlier period going back to Keir Hardie.
We could have an argument—I am not sure whether this is an entirely appropriate place, though I should like to think that Parliament is the appropriate place—about the motivation of Keir Hardie and the Labour pioneers at the beginning of the century in advocating Home Rule for Scotland and Wales against the atmosphere in which every man of radical intention and liberated spirit was advocating Home Rule for Ireland. I do


not think that what Hardie and others were saying then can be separated from the dominating issue of British politics over the previous 20 years and the following 16 years after 1900.
If we put Home Rule into that context, we find that we are not talking about anything remotely resembling our right hon. Friend's Bill, because they talk about decentralisation and devolution. They even had a clause in the Bill—until they were wise enough to withdraw it—which said that it was the very means of guaranteeing the unity of the kingdom.
Of course, Hardie was not pursuing the unity of an imperialistic, Edwardian capitalist State; he was putting the proposition that, because of the way in which, even at that date, the Welsh, Scottish and Irish people had demonstrated a readiness to accept Socialism in a way that England had not, fortune for Socialism lay in providing separate governmental institutions for Scotland, Wales and Ireland. We should put the whole history into that original context and bring it more into our debate.
I recognise the long and honourable association that my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey has—and that Jim Griffiths had, and that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and others have had—with the whole proposal for forms of Home Rule. They have become either diluted or strengthened, whichever way they have gone, as the years have passed.
However, the fact remains—I say this without the slightest criticism and in no sense crowing triumphantly over my right hon. Friend—that beyond that debate in the 1950s, the whole proposal for this kind of constitutional change dwindled in its importance as an issue in the Welsh Labour movement, until it became a matter of almost academic and remote interest to a very small number of people in the movement. It is none the worse for that. I belong to minorities in the movement and I demand the right to press my case. I only hope that I have as much success in pressing my case, from a minority position, as my right hon. Friends have had in pressing theirs. I hope to see the day when a Bill is presented by my right hon. Friends that will secure major adjustments in the Monarchy and the abolition of the House

of Lords, and in which one or two other minor changes are brought about. Perhaps I shall have some success in that respect over the next few years, as my right hon. Friends have had in other respects.
However, is it not the most extraordinary coincidence of history that in the immediate years following the triumph on the first occasion of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), and the shock delivered to me as well as to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) back in 1967, and the temporary local difficulties encountered by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) in 1968—in all three of whose campaigns I was very glad to involve myself—it was in that atmosphere and against that background that we had the whole delusion that somehow the demands, resentments and alienations of Welsh and Scottish people could be met by constitutional change?
Had we had a constant thread of incessant demand in advance of the ideas of Home Rule, decentralisation, devolution, separation, independence, federation, or whatever other of the 57 varieties of constitutional change that we are being offered during this debate, and if that had been consistent and continual, if we had seen marching legions going forward, if the block votes had been cast every year at Labour Party conferences and if at the TUC there had been that consistent demand—we could say that this Bill is the consequence of that kind of development.
I say to my right hon. and learned Friend—and, as on very few other issues, nothing will change my mind—that this Bill, all that has gone before it and all that will come from it until the Welsh people kill it at the referendum, is the product of a particular set of circumstances in the late 1960s, and in 1973 and 1974 in Scotland. Nothing other than a truth drug would expose the actual circumstances or motivations from which we have got the Bill. Nothing could persuade my right hon. Friends to acknowledge that North Sea oil or the threat posed temporarily by the hon. Member for Carmarthen had anything to do with it.
My right hon. Friends must, of course, insist—I am talking not of my right hon.


Friend the Member for Anglesey but of the Government—that not only has the Bill precedents more hallowed than Magna Carta in Labour movement terms but that it is the product of a consistent, insistent and systematic demand growing from the hearts of the Welsh people and from the very bellies of the Welsh Labour movement. And of course, that is utter rubbish.
The reason why I am engaged in this debate at all is that, in the same way as the Bill has appeared without trace, in the same way that it is a patronising response to immediate and short-term political difficulties, we could have, in the same process of appeasement and the same process of retreat, the adoption of linguistic policies by a Welsh Assembly that it had absolutely no intention of implementing on its vesting day. Certainly my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government have not the vaguest intention of seeing it come to pass as they try to put the Bill through Parliament.
That is the background against which we must try to secure legislative guarantees that that cannot happen, because there is another development. I have experienced it, and I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who represent Welsh constituencies experience it. Indeed, all other hon. Members experience it. I refer to the response that one makes to allegations of treachery or of lack of patriotism, or of failing to embrace the cultural identity of the people one represents.
There are different ways to respond to this, but it takes people of the most enormous resilience not, at some stage, to say that for the sake of a quiet life, for the sake of popularity or for the sake of avoiding bitter and irrational arguments about their patriotism, they will beat the drum louder and fly the flag higher, and will concede to those who wish to use patriotism as the criterion of who is worthy.
I have been called anti-Welsh often enough to know the temptation of making that response. However, I am fortunate in that hundreds of thousands—indeed, probably millions—of other people in Wales, who speak Welsh and who do not speak Welsh, resent as deeply as I do the allegations of being anti-Welsh that arise

simply because we do not share the politics of those who make the allegations.
I repeat that I know the temptation, however, of responding to those allegations—that is, that I might try to demonstrate my Welshness, whatever that may mean, in a more profound, dramatic and Thespian way than I would normally. I have seen people doing it. One has only to go into a pub or a club in London at the time of an international game, or to Blackpool, when Welsh people are taking their holidays. One has only to encounter Welsh academics or Welsh lawyers, or Welshmen of any description, in London who, in an alien environment, become so Welsh that their own parents would not recognise them if they were back in Llwydcoed, Cwmcarn, Nantymoel, Llanelli or Machynlleth.

Mr. Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend may know of the definition of "romantic love" as being that of someone who is more prepared to die with his beloved than to live with her. Does not that assist some of us in thinking of the London Welsh?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Kinnock: I ask that all references to the London Welsh be ruled out of order, otherwise I should be involved in considerations of why they should have beaten Liverpool in the cup last Saturday. It is not an area into which I feel entitled to go, however equipped I might be to deal with the matter.
I want to put a hypothetical but very serious point to the Committee. Suppose that we have an Assembly that is dominated by people who do not speak Welsh and who are constantly, because of the way in which they refuse to make concessions, accused of being anti-Welsh. Suppose that, recognising the enormous force of that superficial patriotic catcall, they begin a policy of appeasement, a policy of concession. Suppose that first they show an amenable attitude towards the language zealots. We shall then find that we are in a different situation altogether.
We are fortunate in having our own knowledge of what has happened in Wales, not over thousands of years but over the last 10 years. We have all had our personal experience. We do not have to rely upon the stories of our fathers or our grandfathers. We are therefore able


to anticipate what will be the effect of jingoism on the Assembly and the reaction of Members of the Assembly to the catcalls about treachery. We can appreciate how that can and will bring about involuntary and reluctant changes in policy, but nevertheless changes that will spell disaster for the Welsh people and, in the process, disaster for the Welsh language.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman talks about the "concession" that he foresees and the changes in policy. He has not specified them. If they were to be a response to a demand for more resources for bilingual education, or a response to a demand for the Assembly to make proposals to the House of Commons about any improvement in the Act of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) dealing with the Welsh language, those changes could be achieved only through the legislative process of the House of Commons. So what is the hon. Gentleman worried about?

Mr. Kinnock: I understand that, but it does not lie in the hon. Gentleman's mouth—bearing in mind that he supported an amendment at an earlier stage for legislative powers to be given to the Welsh Assembly—to offer to me now the guarantee that these things could never come to pass because the Assembly would never be given legislative powers. The hon. Gentleman is a very clever chap, but that dextrous employment of fortune does not come too well from him.
Let us suppose that, for whatever reasons, good or ill, the Assembly adopted a policy on language, or encouragement and assistance for the Welsh language, which was exaggerated rather than prejudiced—possibly a misplaced use of funds. In order to get that endorsed in some way, it would have to come back to the House of Commons. There would then, I believe, be two reactions in the House of Commons. There would be people who would say "We dare not try to silence the genuine national voice of Wales, as articulated by its national Assembly, especially since it is pursuing the interests of its national culture". Then there would be the others who would say 'To hell with the Welsh. This is a grand chance for confrontation. It is our chance to put them in their place".
I should not be in either group. I should try to calculate whether the proposition of the Assembly was sensible and in the interests of the Welsh people. But the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I would probably be in a minority, and the Welsh people and the Welsh culture would be crushed like an egg in a nutcracker if that situation came to pass. That is what happens when devolution spawns, because it is a condescension, it is incomplete Home Rule, and it gives all the disadvantages of dependence and all the disadvantages of independence. The hon. Gentleman should by now have started to learn this.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman, in the earlier part of his speech—which I unfortunately missed—said that I did not have any evidence to back up my statement about schools in North Wales. I have received six letters in today's post giving me specific evidence from individual schools, all of which are in different places in North Wales, on both sides of the Menai. On the basis of my offer to the hon. Gentleman last week, I shall provide him with photocopies, on the strict understanding, which I am sure he will honour, that the letters will not be communicated to any other persons. I said the same thing to Mr. O. M. Roberts and have sent copies to him, since the chairman of Gwynedd education committee told me that it would be his purpose to stamp out the victimisation of children, if it exists. I say "where it exists", not "if it exists".
Since we are at one in that purpose, we shall have to find some means of pursuing it, possibly through my right hon. Friend, for there is no better representative of public interest in North Wales or anywhere else in Wales. Perhaps some means can be suggested to me, which can be agreed between us, to ensure that the teachers who perpetrate what I consider to be a crime against these children will be brought to book and dealt with in the most severe fashion.
I think that the hon. Gentleman deliberately misrepresented what I said in Committee last Thursday. I have at no time made a blanket accusation of any description against the teaching profession in Gwynedd or elsewhere. The whole context of my remarks, as he surely recognises, was to direct the attack against a very small number—at least, I hope it is


very small—of teachers, of language zealots who are doing murder to the language that they purport to love. The remainder of the profession is as disturbed and disgusted as I am by that practice. Indeed, some of the complaints made to me over the years have come from career teachers who love their jobs but who, for the same reason as parents, have not wanted to invite retribution by taking their complaints through the normal channels of redress.
I hope that that is specific and clear enough for the hon. Gentleman. What I said in the debate last Thursday is recorded in the Official Report. It will be seen that I specifically exempted the Gwynedd County Council and the Gwynedd local education authority from the charge of any deliberate implementation of a policy against children who do not speak Welsh. It appears to me, however, that there could have been a more frank and a more accurate conveying of the views that I actually expressed.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has relented somewhat from his extreme and groundless statements of last Thursday, but what he has just told the Committee is that he has now received by first-class mail, from certain parts of North Wales, letters which purport to support his allegations in Committee. What he has not given to me privately— as he indicated last Thursday that he would—is a dossier of the evidence that he had at the time when he he made his statement. He is now saying that he has solicited or obtained letters from potential supporters in parts of Gwynedd and Clwyd which purport to support his position. I have yet to receive details of the evidence which led him to make the allegations in the first place. Until he provides me—and also the chairman of the Gwynedd education committee—with those full deails, I shall not relent from my criticism of what he said last Thursday.
Much criticism has been made of the hon. Gentleman's remarks from within the teaching profession and the teachers' unions in Wales. I should have thought that it would be fair for him to take his allegations privately to his right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), to the Secretary of State, who

has oversight of education in Wales, and to the teachers' unions, rather than to make blanket accusations which have still not been substantiated—except post hoc by some solicited correspondence.

Mr. Kinnock: Since the hon. Gentleman made such an infantile speech, I shall now make some accusations. If he has any acquaintance with local life in his area, he knows, and always has known, that this kind of campaign has taken place. As a public representative, regardless of party, he should have been pressing for justice. It is no good the hon. Gentleman pretending that this is the first time that he has heard these allegations or that this is the first allegation he has ever heard. He knows that that is not the case.
It is no good his trying to colour the story by saying that I should have taken this matter up in private and that the House of Commons is much too public a place. In the arguments that we had, I went to great lengths to explain why I had been reluctant to make these allegations public. I did it in a form last Thursday which I hoped would guarantee the maximum action and the minimum of reaction.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Publicity.

Mr. Kinnock: I would never use issues like this in order to get publicity. I am much more interested in getting justice for the kids than in getting the publicity either for myself or for anyone else. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not like the publicity. But I guarantee that he will get a lot of publicity when these teachers are punished for what they have done and he is either required to defend them or apologise and withdraw his accusation that I have solicited this evidence. That is utter rubbish. That is the only way in which I can possibly react. It is total and complete rubbish. I have not had to solicit any evidence.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I suggest that another way of dealing with this matter is for the hon. Gentleman to return to the amendment.

Mr. Kinnock: I shall be glad to do so, because I do not like being out of order. In view of what the hon. Gentleman said earlier, however, and in view of his allegation against me, I am sure, Mr. God-man Irvine, that you recognise my need


to react as forcefully as possible. On subsequent occasions we all have cause to hear a statement from the hon. Gentleman withdrawing what he has said because of the bulk of evidence against it. [Interruption.] I have already told the hon. Gentleman that he shall see the evidence. Continued interruptions from a sedentary position do not help at all.
I return to the amendment. The fear that my hon. Friends and I have is that there will be concessions and the prospect of "slip and slide". My fear is that such a proposal will embitter relations, diminish the support that the language has got and turn us from the situations described by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, where, 10 years ago, the language was regarded with warmth—some of it sentimental, and some of it condescending—and with the greatest of good will. I fear that a situation in which we must take up positions will divide our society because of the way in which zealotry, extremism and bigotry have divided the people of Wales against each other. This has become a linguistic consideration over and above a normal political consideration. In so doing, it has damaged our democracy as well as our belief in the culture of Wales.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has made serious allegations and appears to have evidence in his possession. My advice to him would be to keep his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State fully informed. I am sure that he will.
The language issue is always sensitive On the whole, this has been a sensitive debate. The amendment was drawn up in as stolid and determined a mood as it was moved by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). However, the hon. Gentleman has implied that the amendment has some drafting defects. I understand that he is unlikely to press it to a Division. He believes that the best way of showing his disaffection is to vote against Clause 25. I am in agreement with him.
Having said that, let me assure the hon. Gentleman—who unfortunately is not here at present—that we are fully aware of the feelings on his part, and on the part of many non-Welsh speakers

in Wales, that have prompted him to table the amendment. We are led to believe that there are many people in Wales who, rightly or wrongly, fear the advent of the Assembly because they believe that it will become an instrument of political and cultural nationalism of an extreme character. They fear that their interests will be adversely affected, that they will not be able to get jobs because they are not Welsh speakers and that they will be discriminated against on linguistic grounds. That is what the hon. Gentleman has alleged.
We have heard some of those allegations in this debate. Personally, I have rather greater fear of discrimination on party political grounds, as tends to happen now. I hope that my fears are unjustified. I am bound to admit that some preference—I use the word "preference" as opposed to "discrimination" with its racial connotations—is already practised on linguistic grounds in a limited area where knowledge of the Welsh language is absolutely essential to the performance of the job involved. I am thinking of the teaching of Welsh as a language, the teaching of other subjects in bilingual schools through the medium of Welsh and the television and radio broadcasting of Welsh language programmes.
This was referred to by the Annan Committee. As reference has been made to broadcasting I think that I am justified in quoting from the Annan Report. It says:
We understand that in the past, it has been customary for the BBC Governor for Wales and the IBA's Welsh Member to be bilingual, and the BBC Management in Cardiff told us there was a bar on the promotion of non-Welsh language speakers above a certain level, although this bar was not operated inflexibly. It is often claimed that these arrangements are unfair to non-Welsh speakers and that they can seek advancement in a career in broadcasting only by leaving Wales. It is right that the top executives should be able to understand Welsh and we hope the broadcasting organisations will help staff who want to learn to speak and read Welsh adequately. But it is not right that only the bilingual, brought up with Welsh as their mother-tongue, should have access to the highest jobs.
That is precisely what the Annan Report said.
There are two sides to this issue, and a number of questions are begged. For example, those who leave broadcasting in Wales to advance their careers elsewhere probably do better than if they


remained in Wales. It will be known to hon. Members that some people who started life in broadcasting in Wales have done extremely well since then by leaving Wales. There are some Welsh speakers who have been kept in broadcasting in Wales deliberately when they might have sought advancement elsewhere.
There are counties in Wales in which the proportion of Welsh speakers is very high, if we can still rely on the 1971 census. The proportion in Anglesey was 61·2 per cent., in Caernarvonshire 57·6 per cent., in Carmarthenshire 63·6 per cent., in Cardiganshire 63·9 per cent. and in Merionethshire 65·7 per cent. For comparison, the figure for Monmouth-shire at that time was only 2 per cent., and perhaps one can understand the reaction of the hon. Member for Pontypool.
It is not surprising that a knowledge of Welsh is regarded as a useful asset in the performance of many jobs in the health and social services in areas where there is a high incidence of Welsh-speaking. Similarly, there is an above-average proportion of Welsh speakers among the elderly. Nearly 29 per cent. of those aged 65 and over in Wales in 1971 were Welsh-speaking. Therefore, in the care of geriatrics there is a demand for Welsh-speaking people, especially in those areas I mentioned. Our current difficulty is to get experts in this field who can speak English properly, let alone Welsh. In the jobs I have mentioned, a knowledge of Welsh is either essential or a considerable asset, and no one in the Committee or elsewhere can deny that.
The Welsh Assembly might decide under standing orders that speeches in Welsh are in order. It is inconceivable that the Assembly should decide that they are not in order. If one cannot make Welsh speeches in Wales, where can one make them? Should the Assembly decide that a bilingual official record is required, translators will be called for. Their appointment appears to be debarred under the amendment, which states:
in no circumstances shall it be regarded as appropriate that any person be not appointed in any role as an officer or servant of the Assembly because of lack of knowledge of Welsh".
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Pontypool drew up the amendment in such inflexible terms.
Again, what are non-Welsh-speaking Members and officers of the Assembly to do when faced with letters in the Welsh language? Are they simply to ignore them, or will they preserve the tradition of civility practised certainly by the Welsh Office and, I hope, by other Departments which respect the spirit of the Welsh Language Act 1967 and provide a reply in the language of the letter and the correspondent? I can foresee some Welsh-speaking officers or servants being required by the Assembly for the purposes I have mentioned, as they are required currently by the Welsh Office. Consequently, the remainder of the amendment permitting an action in tort is not altogether appropriate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) implied, there is a danger of a host of bogus actions being brought against the Assembly by those who fail to get a job on its staff and who can allege that it was on account of their lack of knowledge of the Welsh language, whether or not there is any substance in the allegation.
The Conservative attitude towards the Welsh language—indeed, both languages—is made clear in our amendment to Clause 11, in which we suggested that the clause should read as follows:
The Assembly may make arrangements to support museums, art galleries, libraries, the languages and culture of Wales, the arts, crafts, sport and other cultural and recreational activities; but shall not under this section do, or include in any such arrangements, anything which would unreasonably prejudice the interests or restrict the employment opportunities of those who do, or those who do not, speak the Welsh language.
That is absolutely fair. We must seek to preserve a balanced judgment and approach to this question of the language. By no means all the half million Welsh-speaking population of Wales—about 20 per cent. of the whole—are devolutionists. Nor are they supporters of Plaid Cymru, which secures only about 10 per cent. of the vote in a General Election. They belong to all parties, and all parties have done their best to support the language and its culture. Perhaps the greatest mistake has been for Welsh speakers to rely too much on governmental action to save the language. I know of no language that has been saved directly and only by Government action.
Welsh speakers do not ask for an unfair advantage over their non-Welsh-speaking brethren. I have yet to see any Welsh speaker of my acquaintance urge his or her claim to a job purely on linguistic grounds where the language was not essential to the purpose of the job.
We would deplore the inclusion in any job advertisement of the need for a language qualification where such a qualification was clearly unnecessary. One hears stories about advertisements for Welsh-speaking baths attendants and so on, but I have never seen a copy of such an advertisement. We must remember our half million Welsh speakers, many of whom will wish to vote "No" in the referendum. We must not be insensitive to their love of the language, and I know that the hon. Member for Pontypool is not so. I remember his name heading the list of subscribers to the Royal National Eisteddfod at Cardiff some years ago—if it was not the hon. Gentleman, it was his brother.
We in Wales certainly have not reached the stage reached by the Parti Quebecois Government in the 80 per cent. French-speaking province of Quebec. They are promoting a charter for the French language designed to give it primacy in relation to English not only in the schools but also at work. All companies, multinationals included, are under some duress to make French the language of the work people. Behind this move one senses that there is a shortage of jobs anyway and that the local people are simply using the charter to secure priority in employment for local people. There is some of this anxiety in Wales. Whenever we have a major industrial or construction development, we all seek to ensure that priority in employment is given to local people, to our constituents, rather than to others who can be brought in from outside. It is natural that we should seek to protect our own.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: My hon. Friend referred to the Parti Quebecois, which operates in an area which has an overwhelming majority of French speakers. Is he perhaps not under-stressing the main point, that we are dealing with a minority which is outnumbered five to one? There could come a point at which, if the proceedings of the Assembly were to be broadcast, the overwhelming majority of the Welsh

people would not be able to understand the proceedings of their own Assembly in they were conducted in Welsh.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Roberts: I really do not think that that situation is at all imminent. If my hon. Friend looks at the proportion of broadcasting in Wales that is in English compared with the proportion that is in Welsh, he will find that there is a tremendous preponderance of English language broadcasting.
An anxiety to protect lies behind the next series of amendments, which do not think we shall reach. There is an attempt to protect local government staff and ensure that they will be given parity of treatment with the Civil Service when they apply for jobs with the Assembly. This is particularly relevant in view of Clause 13 which we passed yesterday.
There will be no Welsh public service—that is quite clear—although NALGO has pressed for it and a document prepared by the Labour Party in its Wales executive committee said that it was "crucial" for the Assembly to have control of its own Civil Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) referred to these matters in his earlier intervention. Although the amendment under discussion assumes that the Assembly has powers of appointment, Clause 67 makes it clear that the appointments will be to the Home Civil Service and will be made accordingly. I believe that it would be a great loss to the Civil Service in Wales if its connection with the rest of the United Kingdom was lost. It would be a loss to local government as well.
I do not think that we can consider this amendment properly without reference to the principle of the clause to which it is a somewhat lengthy addendum. The amendment does not make sense except in the context of the clause. The preamble to the Bill says that the Civil Service will be increased by 1,150 over the forecast levels. This includes the staff to support the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor-General.
It does not say what the Welsh-speaking complement will be, but there are bound to be some Welsh speakers just as there are in the Welsh Office at present. It would be interesting to know the number of Welsh speakers in the


Welsh Office now. Capital expenditure incurred on account of the extra civil servants is estimated at £1 million. Forecast annual running costs of the Assembly include an item of £9·5 million for additional civil servants, including the staff of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor-General and accommodation costs for them. This means that the annual average cost per head is £8,261 at November 1977 prices.
It is interesting to note how those figures have changed since the Scotland and Wales Bill. In that Bill, costs were calculated on November 1976 prices. The cost of adapting the Stock Exchange at Cardiff has risen from £2·8 million to £3 million and the cost of providing equipment and accommodation consequent upon the reorganisation of the Welsh Office has remained curiously constant at £1 million. On the other hand, the annual running costs in respect of salaries and related costs of Members of the Assembly have risen from £2·5 million to £3 million. At the same time, the annual running costs for civil servants have fallen from £10 million to £9·5 million, presumably because the numbers have been reduced from 1,300 in the Scotland and Wales Bill to 1,100-odd in the present Bill. The average annual cost of the civil servants per head at 1976 prices was £7,692. At 1977 prices it is £569 more. That is quite a significant annual rate of increase—7·4 per cent., although in fairness I am bound to point out that prices increased in that year by 13 per cent.
A number of specific questions arise on this amendment. How are the staff increases calculated? What do the Government mean by saying that they are over the forecast levels? And what are the forecast levels? Surely this means that the Assembly does not have a free hand to appoint officers and servants as it considers appropriate without a limit of some sort, and that limit is implied in the preamble. Also, there must be a limit to the amount that the Assemblymen can pay themselves, and these limits are also implied in the preamble.
When we talk about appointments to the Assembly, whether Welsh-speaking or non-Welsh-speaking, we must ask what these people are in addition to. It is not stated, for instance, whether the 1,150 increase includes the civil servants trans-

ferred to the Welsh Office after the devolution of agriculture and higher education to the Secretary of State for Wales.
A total of 1,565 civil servants were employed in the Welsh Office as at 1st April 1977. I hope that the Minister will tell us how many are Welsh-speaking. Presumably the same proportion of Welsh-speaking to non-Welsh-speaking civil servants will prevail when the staff is increased. By 1st April 1978 the Welsh Office will employ 2,600 civil servants. Are we to understand that after the establishment of the Assembly there will be 3,750 civil servants in the Welsh Office? What about the ancillary staff, and how many of them will there be?
We cannot give full consideration to the question of appointments without reference to the method of appointment. This is referred to in Clause 67, where it is stated that
Service as an officer or servant of the Assembly or of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General shall be service in the home civil service of the state, and appointments to any position as such an officer or servant shall be made accordingly".
I am not sure how such appointments will be made in relation to the Assembly, but surely this is very relevant to the amendment. We have no precedent in the House of Commons, because the staff of the five independently administered Departments of the House are not civil servants. They are Officers or Officials of the House—the Serjeant at Arms' Department, the Clerk's Department, the Speaker's Department, the Library and the Administration Department.
Presumably the Assembly will have similar internal authorities supported by the Department of the Environment or the Welsh equivalent. Over and above these internal authorities, there must be a full-scale Civil Service to execute the functions of the Assembly. In appointing the members of the Civil Service, those concerned are bound to ask whether applicants are Welsh-speaking, not that that question is relevant in many cases. It would be useful to know that. The Assembly staff may contain, for example, a Welsh-speaking statistician. His knowledge of the language might not be highly relevant to his job but might be indirectly useful to someone in his section or elsewhere in the service.
I hope that the amendment of the hon. Member for Pontypool does not debar


that question being asked of applicants. I am sure that it will not be debarred because it is customary to ask applicants for significant jobs what languages they speak and those who are Welsh-speaking will presumably include that language.
To sum up, we shall vote against the motion that Clause 25 should stand part of the Bill as a protest against the increase in bureaucracy that it will undoubtedly create. It is not just the increase of 1,150 referred to by the hon. Member for Pontypool but the host that will come with them or after them as a result of this open-ended commitment in Clause 25. It is all very well for the Government to talk of reviewing local government and implying surreptitiously that there will then be a cut-back. By their own admission, there can be no real change there for years to come, and meanwhile Wales is to be loaded with this extra tier of bureacracy. Nor is it likely that there will be cut-backs elsewhere to compensate for the increases in Wales.
At most, the hon. Gentleman's amendment does not, we agree, contain proper safeguards to ensure fair play as regards employment but the amendment as it stands is imperfect, as he has admitted. We might try to come back to it at a later stage with wording more in the spirit of our amendment to Clause 11 if we feel on further reflection that such safeguards are necessary. We should presently concentrate our minds on voting against the clause as an indication of our clear dissatisfaction with this highly bureaucratic measure.

Mr. John Morris: The Committee has had an interesting debate. It has been helpful in that in the course of their speeches hon. Members on both sides have isolated extremism. Undoubtedly there is a great deal of extremism in Wales on the language issue, but we have managed to avoid that this afternoon. It is right for us dispassionately to consider whether there are problems; and if problems are established no one would be more anxious than myself to ensure that there were adequate safeguards.
There is no monopoly in looking after the interests of both the English-speaking majority in Wales and the minority who speak the two languages. My hon. Friends in the Welsh Office and myself have the privilege of representing areas which are

substantially, though not wholly, English-speaking, and we would none of us yield to anyone in our care and concern to ensure that those who speak either one or both languages of Wales are adequately protected, certainly so far as employment is concerned.
The next point I would seek to make is on how the framework of the system of devolution that we have devised will operate. The Assemblymen will be representatives from all corners of Wales. A majority of the people of Wales speak only the English tongue, and, therefore, I find it inconceivable that there would be anything short of common sense in the approach of the Assemblymen from the whole of Wales, knowing as they do that a majority of them will represent electors who speak only one language. Therefore, I hope that in the course of this debate we have managed to exclude any approach other than that of common sense in the way that the Assembly will conduct its business.
6.45 p.m.
Earlier in the debate, an hon. Member spoke about the approach of one party. I shall not enter into that controversy now, but it would be the commonsense approach not of one party but of the whole of the Assembly that governed its proceedings. Therefore, I hope very much that in my remarks I shall be able to reassure hon. Members on both sides if there is a need of reassurance.
Earlier this afternoon we had a most interesting historical analysis by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). Although I do not want to go into this aspect in any depth, the latter was seeking to say that we were reacting in these matters to what a former Prime Minister referred to as a "temporary local difficulty", arising from by-elections in the late 1960s and also from the later political position in Scotland. Without in any way reflecting on my colleagues and good comrades in Scotland, it should be clearly understood that long before that time we in the Labour movement in Wales had reached certain conclusions. I do not know whether that is acceptable to all my hon. Friends, but certainly a consensus had


been arrived at in the party in Wales long before the issue in Scotland.
I shall go briefly over the historical approach of the Labour Party in Wales. Leaving aside earlier historical references and activities in the 1950s and coming to the 1960s, in 1965 the executive committee of the Welsh Council of Labour, of which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) was a distinguished member long before becoming a Member of Parliament, called for a system of devolution. In May 1966 the annual conference of the Welsh Council of Labour accepted the recommendation of the executive committee. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) was elected to the House of Commons for the first time in July 1966. In 1967–68 the executive of the Welsh Council of Labour continued to press its point of view on local government reorganisation and the need for devolution.
In 1968, following the 1967 White Paper on local government, the conference again called for devolution. The Labour Government set up the Commission on the Constitution, and in 196869 evidence was prepared for the Commission. I shall not dwell upon that now. What is manifest is that long before these temporary local difficulties the Labour movement in Wales had formed a view, and it is upon that view that our present proposals are based.

Mr. Fred Evans: My right hon. and learned Friend should surely add that on the occasion when the Labour Party in Wales met to discuss this subject there was not always sweet harmony. But a note of bitter recrimination in many of the discussions. I myself was present and listened to a great deal of the crosscurrents between Merthyr, Glamorgan County Council and others, when that distinguished solicitor, Mr. Rees-Davies, was the consulting speaker to the conference held in Cardiff; and subsequently many similar occasions were as bitter.

Mr. Morris: Of course, there was discussion and argument. But even my hon. Friend, in his election address, supported devolution. We shall not go into that now. What I am saying is that those of us who have attended our conferences year in, year out for decades will know clearly that what we are proposing is a

natural development of the position which has emerged from within the Labour movement. I say that to correct the interpretation which my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty sought to give to the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has claimed, rightly, that he would not pretend that his amendment was perfect. My impression was that he would not seek to include translators in the suggestion he was putting forward. Leaving aside the subject of translators—a problem in itself—I found two parts in the logic of my hon. Friend difficult to follow. First, he said that a Welsh Civil Service was inevitable. I presume from that that if there were no Welsh Civil Service his fears would be non-existent. If we were to change what is now proposed and say that the civil servants of the Assembly should be Welsh civil servants rather than home civil servants, we should have to enact legislation. Thus, my hon. Friend has adequate protection on that score.
I see enormous merit in having a strong body of civil servants in Wales. This is part of my philosophy of decentralisation of Government offices to Wales—Cardiff in particular—to ensure that there is wide opportunity for our people, especially young people, to take part in the administration of Government Departments, be they in the Welsh Office or elsewhere.

Mr. Abse: Has not my right hon. and learned Friend made abundantly clear in his White Papers that, while he wishes that there should not be a separate Welsh Civil Service, that would be a matter for the Welsh Assembly to decide? Is he suggesting that if the Assembly came to the conclusion—and I believe it would be inevitable—that there should be a Welsh Civil Service, it would be possible for the House of Commons to frustrate something which has been offered as a matter of choice in his White Papers?

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend must follow my remarks. Any such change would require primary legislation, and that would be a matter for the House of Commons. That is an additional safeguard for my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend went on to say that the use of the Welsh language by


Assemblymen would require a top tier of Welsh-speaking civil servants. The language used in the Assembly would be a matter for the Assembly. If Welsh were to be used, obviously translators would be needed. It does not follow from that that there would need to be a Welsh-speaking top tier of civil servants. If a communication is made in Welsh and a translation is made, it follows that anyone at the receiving end does not have to be Welsh-speaking. That would negate the whole idea of translation. This is the practice used now in communications with all hon. Members and individual citizens. There would be no difference.
It is true that Clause 25 gives the Assembly a formal power to appoint staff. But that power is severely constrained by Clause 67, which provides that all Assembly staff shall be members of the Home Civil Service. That in turn means that the system for making permanent appointments to the staff of the Assembly is governed by the Civil Service Order in Council 1969. In other words, the Assembly will have the same powers of appointment as United Kingdom Ministers, and recruitment and selection of Assembly staff will be carried out by or under the general control of the Civil Service Commissioners. The Assembly will not be able to appoint anyone to a permanent post who has not received the Commissioners' certificate of qualification.
As for promotion, there are well-understood procedures in the Civil Service, agreed with staff side representatives, which ensure that promotion is fair and non-discriminatory. Clause 67 says that the staff of the Welsh Assembly shall be part of the Home Civil Service. Moreover, both the Assembly's departmental staff side and the staff side of the National Whitley Council will be extremely vigilant in watching for discrimination or unfairness. That is the procedure that will be followed, as will be seen from reading these two clauses together. I hope that, upon reflection, hon. Members who have been concerned about this subject—and I do not quarrel with their concern—will feel that there are adequate safeguards.
I was specifically asked about the number of Welsh-speaking staff in the Welsh Office. There is no language qualification for Welsh staff other than

for translators. I am not formally aware, except when I converse with individuals—and I see no reason why I should be made aware—that an official is Welsh-speaking. The same situation will flow from having the same recruitment and promotion procedures for Assembly staff as those currently used for the Welsh Office. In any event, the Assembly will be a democratic body elected by and representative of the people of Wales. There is no reason to imagine that it would act in any way which would antagonise the English-speaking majority in the Principality. There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who is prepared to trust the Welsh people but that the Assembly will be fair both to Welsh and non-Welsh people alike.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The debate has fully justified my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in tabling the amendment and beginning a discussion on the question of the Welsh language. I hope that, in view of the debate, he will not press the amendment to a Division.
It is possible that the wording of the amendment could be improved. There are fears in Wales of which we should be aware. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) said that we should take this subject out of politics. We cannot do that. What we should do is take it out of party politics. There is no party which believes more than the Labour Party in the Welsh language. The Conservative Party can make a similar claim. Although Plaid Cymru talks about being a Welsh party and being the champion of the language, its policies are detrimental to it.
I wish that Plaid Cymru would clearly and continually condemn the young people who are being misled. For instance, when bilingual signs are put up, certain people destroy them because the English appears before the Welsh. They want the Welsh before the English. If we have the argument about the fourth television channel, they should condemn—

It being Seven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [1st March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the chair.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Seven o'clock.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 196, Noes 169.

Division No. 140]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Graham, Ted
Park, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Parry, Robert


Ashley, Jack
Hardy, Peter
Panhallgon, David


Atkinson, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Reid, George


Bates, Alf
Heifer, Eric S.
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bean, R. E.
Henderson, Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Beith, A. J.
Hooson, Emlyn
Roderick, Caerwyn


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rooker, J. W.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roper, John


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rose, Paul B.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hunter, Adam
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rowlands, Ted


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sandelson, Neville


Bradley, Tom
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sedgemore, Brian


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sever, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Buchanan, Richard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skinner, Dennis


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Kaufman, Gerald
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Campbell, Ian
Kerr, Russell
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cant, R. B.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Snape, Peter


Carson, John
Lamborn, Harry
Spearing, Nigel


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Cartwright, John
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lee, John
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Coleman, Donald
Litterick, Tom
Stoddart, David


Concannon, J. D.
Loyden, Eddie
Stott, Roger


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Luard, Evan
Strang, Gavin


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Crawford, Douglas
MacCormick, Iain
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Crawshaw, Richard
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Cryer, Bob
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Davidson, Arthur
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thompson, George


Davies, Ifor (Gowor)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Deakins, Eric
Mackintosh, John P.
Tierney, Sydney


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tuck, Raphael


Dempsey, James
McNamara, Kevin
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Doig, Peter
Madden, Max
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dormand, J. D.
Mahon, Simon
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Eadie, Alex
Maynard, Miss Joan
Ward, Michael


Edge, Geoff
Mikardo, Ian
Watkinson, John


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Watt, Hamish


English, Michael
Mitchell, Austin
Weetch, Ken


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Molyneaux, James
Welsh, Andrew


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Moonman, Eric
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wigley, Dafydd


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Fiannery, Martin
Newens, Stanley
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Noble, Mike
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Oakes, Gordon
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ford, Ben
Ogden, Eric
Woodall, Alec


Forrester, John
O'Halloran, Michael
Woof, Robert


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Orbach, Maurice
Young, David (Bolton E)


Freud, Clement
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



George, Bruce
Ovenden, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gilbert, Dr John
Padley, Walter
Mr. James Hamilton and


Ginsburg, David
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Golding, John
Pardoe, John





NOES


Abse, Leo
Banks, Robert
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Adley, Robert
Bell, Ronald
Braine, Sir Bernard


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Brittan, Leon


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Berry, Hon Anthony
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brooke, Peter


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Blaker, Peter
Brotherton, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)




Bryan, Sir Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Richard (Workington)


Budgen, Nick
Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Cecil


Bulmer, Esmond
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Burden, F. A.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Percival, Ian


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pink, R. Bonner


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Churchill, W. S.
Kilfedder, James
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Raison, Timothy


Clegg, Walter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rathbone, Tim


Cockrott, John
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Peter (Dover a Deal)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cope, John
Knox, David
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rhodes James, R.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawson, Nigel
Ridsdale, Julian


Drayson, Burnaby
Lester, I'm (Beeston)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Durant, Tony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Colin


Elliott, Sir William
McCusker, H.
Silvester, Fred


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Macfarlane, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George


Eyre, Reginald
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Fell, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Speed, Keith


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Marten, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Goodhew, Victor
Mayhew, Patrick
Tebbit, Norman


Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Griffiths, Eldon
Moate, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Grist, Ian
Monro, Hector
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hampson, Dr Keith
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wall, Patrick


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint
Warren, Kenneth


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hastings, Stephen
Neave, Alrey
Wells, John


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hawkins, Paul
Neubert, Michael
Younger, Hon George


Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, John



Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Sir George Young and


Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow West)
Mr. John MacGregor.


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 26 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

REMUNERATION

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 194, Noes 165.

Division No. 141]
AYES
[7.14 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crawshaw, Richard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cryer, Bob


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Ashton, Joe
Buchanan, Richard
Davidson, Arthur


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzll


Atkinson, Norman
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Campbell, Ian
Deakins, Eric


Bates, Alf
Cant, R. B.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bean, R. E.
Carter-Jones Lewis
Dempsey, James


Beith, A. J.
Cartwright, John
Dolg, Peter


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dormand, J. D.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Coleman, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Concannon, Rt Hon John
Dunnett, Jack


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Eadie, Alex


Boardman, H.
Cowans, Harry
Edge, Geoff


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
English, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Bradley, Tom
Crawford, Douglas
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)




Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sever, John


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McElhone, Frank
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Flannery, Martin
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


Foot Rt Hon Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Snape, Peter


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


Freud, Clement
Madden, Max
Stallard, A. W.


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mahon, Simon
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David


Golding, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stott, Roger


Graham, Ted
Maynard, Miss Joan
Strang, Gavin


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mitchell, Austin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hardy, Peter
Moonman, Eric
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thompson, George


Hooson, Emlyn
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Newens, Stanley
Tierney, Sydney


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Noble, Mike
Tuck, Raphael


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ovenden, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Palmer, Arthur
Ward, Michael


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pardoe, John
Watkinson, John


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, George
Weetch, Ken


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parker, John
Welsh, Andrew


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Parry, Robert
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Panhaligon, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Kaufman, Gerald
Reid, George
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Kerr, Russell
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lamborn, Harry
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.
Woodall, Alec


Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John
Woof, Robert


Lee, John
Rose, Paul B.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Litterick, Tom
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Luard, Evan
Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Sandelson, Neville
Mr. James Tinn.


MacCormick, Iain
Sedgemore, Brian





NOES


Adley, Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthome)
Elliott, Sir William
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Awdry, Daniel
Eyre, Reginald
Kilfedder, James


Banks, Robert
Farr, John
Kimball, Marcus


Bell, Ronald
Fell, Anthony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Blaker, Peter
Fry, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lawson, Nigel


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Glyn, Dr Alan
Loveridge, John


Brittan, Leon
Goodhew, Victor
Luce, Richard


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Gorst, John
McCusker, H.


Brooke, Peter
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Macfarlane, Neil


Brotherton, Michael
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
MacGregor, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grieve, Percy
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Eldon
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Budgen, Nick
Grist, Ian
McNair-Wilson, p. (New Forest)


Bulmer, Esmond
Grylls, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mather, Carol


Carson, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hastings, Stephen
Mawby, Ray


Churchill, W. S.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hawkins, Paul
Mayhew, Patrick


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Barney
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Cockroft, John
Hicks, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hordern, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cope, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Moate, Roger


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Molyneaux, James


Drayson, Burnaby
Jessel, Toby
Monro, Hector


Durant, Tony
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Montgomery, Fergus







Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Tebbit, Norman


Morgan, Geraint
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Hon Peter (Cheater)
Rhodes James, R.
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Neave, Alrey
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)


Nelson, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian
Townsend, Cyril D.


Neubert, Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Nott, John
Roberts. Wyn (Conway)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Onslow, Cranley
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Page, John (Harrow West)
Shepherd, Colin
Wall, Patrick


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Silvester, Fred
Warren, Kenneth


Page, Richard (Workington)
Sinclair, Sir George
Weatherill, Bernard


Parkinson, Cecil
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Percival, Ian
Speed, Keith
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Pink, R. Bonner
Spence, John
Younger, Hon George


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stanbrook, Ivor



Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stokes, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stradling Thomas, J.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Raison, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Jim Lester.


Rathbone, Tim

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO PREVENT OR REQUIRE ACTION

Mr. Francis Pym: I beg to move Amendment No. 225, in page 12, line 6, leave out from 'would' to second 'or' in line 7 and insert
'affect, directly or indirectly, any matter with respect to which the Assembly has no power to act'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 226, in page 12, line 8, leave out 'reserved' and insert 'such'.

No. 227, in page 12, line 8, leave out or might'.

No. 228, in page 12, leave out lines 27 to 31.

No. 231, in Clause 36, page 13, line 7, leave out 'a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly' and insert
', directly or indirectly, any matter with respect to which the Assembly has no power to act'.

No. 232, in page 13, leave out lines 19 and 20.

Mr. Pym: I think that the Committee will have grasped the point by now that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I do not care for the Assembly as proposed in the Bill. There are those in Wales who want it. I understand their

reasons for wanting it and their hopes of it. It is when we begin to investigate the details of what is proposed in the Bill and consider the practicalities and the complications and difficulties that begin to appear that doubts begin to arise. The mere fact that Part III is entitled "Relations with United Kingdom Authorities" suggests problems and potential conflict.
Clauses 35 and 36 represent a weakness in the system of devolution that is proposed. They are likely to lead, to some extent, to disharmony and disenchantment. I believe that more is expected and that more is likely to become expected of the Assembly in Wales, than can be delivered. I visualise that in due course pressure will mount upon it, if it ever is set up, and hopes will be raised to an excessive extent.
I am fearful of the tensions that are likely to grow between the Assembly, if it is ever set up, and Westminster. I think that some sort of industry might develop, which would not help the people of Wales. Where there has been a feeling of sympathy and unity between Wales and England for centuries, I am fearful that there will emerge tensions and jealousies and a tendency towards discord and disunity.
One of the causes of friction will be found in the override powers contained in Clauses 35 and 36. To some extent the powers are directed to safeguard against the underlying dangers, and our amendments are designed to seek to remedy that so far as is possible.
7.30 p.m.
These override powers amount to a veto on any Executive action and any subordinate legislation that the Assembly would be entitled to enact, but they are


also confined to any matter, according to line 29 of the clause "which concerns Wales". In one aspect of what it seeks to achieve this clause is too widely drawn and in another too narrowly drawn. The amendments seek to deal with both shortcomings.
The circumstances in which this veto can be used are very wide indeed. They refer to action which
would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly".
Amendment No. 225 would leave out the words "or might". That is a genuine improvement, of itself, because it must cut out the conjecture and speculation that is bound to arise about whether any action might or might not affect the reserved matters.
The question really is, would it? As the clause is drawn, it is not hard to imagine a range of circumstances in which highly political and contentious decisions could be made by the Secretary of State, especially if the political colour of the Assembly in Wales were different from that of Westminster. Anyway, it seems almost a licence, or at any rate an invitation, to interfere when any matter concerning Wales is affected.
The Government are establishing a Welsh Assembly, accompanied by high expectations of the devolution envisaged, yet in Clauses 35 and 36 they are retaining unto themselves these far-reaching powers. Whenever those powers are used, the action will be controversial, whether it be seldom or frequently. By devolving subordinate legislation to Wales, the Government are creating in Wales a policy-making body, but they seem to have had second thoughts and decided to widen control through these clauses.
I question whether it is wise to try to have it both ways—to create a kind of mini-Parliament with certain powers and then seek to control the way in which it exercises its powers, because that must lead to disagreement and conflict. These clauses will not make the overriding of the Assembly any more politically acceptable. It will, I fear, always be contentious.
I want to now turn to the way in which these reserved powers are defined, because we propose widening that definition to include matters that go beyond

those that concern Wales. Assuming for the moment that the method in the clause is right, surely the safeguard should extend to matters affecting England alone, as was done in the Scotland and Wales Bill. Clause 46 of that Bill was different. The procedure envisaged could have been used where action taken by the Welsh Assembly affected a matter in England, such as, for example, education or health, but I do not think that that applies in this Bill, which is confined to Wales.
Is there not a case for saying that there is more justification for a clause extending to matters affecting England alone than one which extends to matters affecting only Wales? That does not seem to be provided in the Bill.
If a Welsh Assembly action might indirectly affect, say, English education, there would be no requirement for the Welsh Assembly to take that into account; there would be no need for it to worry about any effect beyond Wales. In those circumstances, where an action of the Welsh Assembly indirectly affected a matter in England, it might well be that Parliament would say that the repercussions were of such character that they were unacceptable, that we could not let that action by the Assembly proceed.
As I understand it, that is the central point of the clause, but that possibility is specifically excluded by the words that I have previously quoted. That is unfortunate. In those circumstances, Parliament would have to legislate for England and perhaps for Wales to overcome those difficulties. There would be no other way of taking that action, as the Bill is drawn.
Once again in a matter of legislation, therefore, we come to the English dimension and the effect that the Bill would have upon England. English Members would have no voice in opposing or overriding a Welsh action affecting England, but Welsh Members would have a direct vote in any such question affecting England alone.
A long time ago, the Minister of State said that Government and Parliament
must have powers available, with reasonable flexibility, to protect interests which have not been devolved of people living in other parts of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 16th December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 1747.]


That is precisely the point. The Minister could say that under the Scotland and Wales Bill, but I am not at all sure that he can say it, as I read Clause 35, under this Bill. That is what we are seeking to achieve in these amendments.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I think I can say that, with respect, since the important qualification was involved in that statement about matters "which have not been devolved".

Mr. Pym: The Minister will no doubt come to that point, but it is drawn in a different way. Whereas the powers to require action are a fine point, this clause confines the action concerned to Wales. Amendment No. 228 would omit subsection (3), nothing like which appeared in the Scotland and Wales Bill.
Those are the two basic changes that we want to bring about—to cut out looseness and the wording "would or might affect…directly or indirectly," and to widen the scope of the use of the clause beyond matters that concern only Wales.
The question of the public interest appears in subsection (1). There will often be argument whether a particular matter does or does not affect a reserved matter, and whether it is or is not in the public interest to veto it. It seems to me that the Welsh Assembly may well claim that it is the best judge whether an action affects a reserved matter in Wales and whether it affects it in such a way that the action is not in the public interest.
How does the Minister intend to interpret the phrase "public interest"? Does he not think that the Assembly in Wales will have a strong view on the question whether or not a matter affects the public interest in the context of this clause?
Then there is the problem of the frequency of the use of which these powers are to be put. If they are to be used frequently they may be justified as one way of overriding the Assembly on a day-to-day basis—perhaps a simpler way than by passing an Act of Parliament each time. But that would be only another way of saying, "You may act only in ways of which we approve." That does not seem to be the intention, although it might be. If, on the other hand, it is intended to use the clause infrequently,

its use will always be a source of major conflict each time that it is used. If it is invoked only occasionally, it would hardly seem enough just to claim that the provision might indirectly affect a reserved matter. That is weak ground on which to put a proposition before Parliament.
The first time that Parliament stepped back from the use of this clause for fear of the consequences, the override powers would lose any deterrent effect which they are supposed to have. If its use is to be infrequent, would it not be better to use a different procedure altogether?
If the Assembly were to act in a way that Parliament could not accept, for any reason, Parliament could enact legislation to put right what it found unacceptable. The legislative process itself would be a safeguard against abuse and would ensure that the issue would be thoroughly considered and not just vetoed by a single vote. That might be a better way of going about the matter.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I am following my right hon. Friend's argument with interest, but let us, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Assembly were not to implement the existing law of the land. Would we in this House then pass a law saying that the Assembly would have to implement a law that was in being? I do not understand my right hon. Friend's argument.

Mr. Pym: My hon. Friend draws attention to an interesting point. There is no specific requirement to compel the Assembly to take such action, but presumably the Government could pass legislation in this House which would apply to Wales, or conceivably one could take the Assembly to court. That point arises in respect of the earlier provisions.
My reading of the situation is that the clause would not be an appropriate way to adjust the provision in a situation, as described by my hon. Friend, in which the Assembly had not fulfilled an obligation imposed upon it by this House.

Mr. John Watkinson: I am following the argument with interest. The right hon. Gentleman should note that subsection (6) contains means by which this House is to consider the matter and that an order has to be laid. I believe that a resolution has to be approved by each House of Parliament.


Therefore, it appears that the right hon. Gentleman is substituting a more cumbersome process for what would appear to be a simple one.

Mr. Pym: Later amendments deal with subsection (6) on the parliamentary aspects. The important point is that Parliament has no right or opportunity to raise this matter. It must be done by the Secretary of State, and by him alone. It is the Secretary of State who must take the decision, make a recommendation, and decide whether the action would or might affect the reserved matter if it were in the public interest. He could then lay an order. There is no other parliamentary procedure by which Parliament can take any initiative or by which the Opposition can say that it is a matter that should be considered. That is one of my criticisms of the clause.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) was reasonable in suggesting that what is proposed in the Bill is a relatively simple and convenient method of exercising restraint on the Assembly rather than to going to the extent of introducing full-blown legislation in an Act of Parliament to deal with the position. That appears to be more cumbersome than the method set out in the Bill.

Mr. Pym: Does the Minister of State agree that if a matter affecting something in England or some other part of the United Kingdom, the powers in this clause would not apply? In other words, does he agree that the only way in which the Government could adjust something carried out by the Welsh Assembly would be by passing a Bill? That situation did not obtain when devolution proposals were before the House on an earlier occasion. This is an important point. I was arguing that if, in those circumstances, the Government could adjust something that went wrong in England only by passing legislation, that would be a full and proper parliamentary procedure. I was saying that if it were right to take that step in the case of something that happened in England, it would be arguable that one could do so in respect of something that happened in Wales, despite the powers taken in this clause. It would lead to difficulties.
The Government believe that they can oversee these administrative acts without having to employ a substantial number of additional civil servants and without checking what the Assembly does. How, otherwise, will the Government know whether action taken would or might affect a reserve matter, whether directly or indirectly? How will they know, if they do not go through a complicated monitoring process?
In the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy" the Government said that it was not their intention to conduct close monitoring or to look constantly over the shoulder of the Assembly, but it appears to us that if the Secretary of State has to make his decision in the light of what is laid down in the clause there must be certain degree of surveillance before he can take a proper decision.
That is the point of this group of amendments. It appears to us that the override power as drawn here, wide as it is, will lead to contention and disagreement. I hope the Government will accept these amendments. They are genuinely designed to try to make the clause more effective, to apply outside Wales, and to be applied in circumstances that are less vague than the words that I have repeated. I hope that in that spirit the Government will feel able to support us.

Mr. John Smith: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one point of which he will be aware. What he proposes in these amendments is the formulation in respect of override set out in the Scotland and Wales Bill. Can he recall any occasion when he recommended that formulation in debates on that Bill?

Mr. Pym: I did not address myself to Clause 46 of the Scotland and Wales Bill. Indeed, on that subject I do not think we got beyond Clause 2. Nevertheless, the Minister of State has acknowledged that there is a substantial difference between what was in the Government's mind on that occasion and the provisions in this Bill. I have been addressing my mind to what we see as weaknesses in these provisions, and I have been seeking to suggest alternative ways in which effective government could be achieved more satisfactorily.

Mr. Watkinson: In discussing reserve powers we are dealing with some of the


most complex and difficult provisions in the devolution proposals.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is right to point out that the conflict which may emerge between a devolved Assembly and the Executive—the Government—can and will be a source of considerable difficulty for the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, if one accepts devolution, it is inevitable to draw certain demarcation lines and to take decisions in judging the matters that fall over those lines.
One method lies in leaving this matter to the judges. I believe that at an early stage in the devolution proposals it was suggested that this matter should be put before the Judicial Committee. I think that the Government were right to move away from a proposition that would have left to the judges the determination of whether the reserved powers had been taken over in any way by a devolved Assembly. I think that would have been wrong.
If this position is accepted, clearly powers have to be given to the Secretary of State to pass judgment. It is unnecessary at this stage to go into the reasons why in the context of Great Britain it would be inappropriate for judges to make decisions of that kind.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Is not the hon. Member on a false point? In the Scotland Bill the Government, far from moving away from judicial determination in these matters, moved towards it and laid down a procedure whereby the Judicial Committee should express a view on whether legislation was within the powers of the Assembly; and, afterwards, the courts, including the Judicial Committee, would be able to pronounce whether Acts were ultra vires. Does the hon. Member agree that in this legislation there is no specific pre-Assent consideration? Under this Bill, if something that the Welsh Assembly does is ultra vires, the courts may intervene. Is not the hon. Member wrong to praise the Government for moving away from judicial determination on matters of vires?

Mr. Watkinson: I am dealing with the propositions as they relate to the Wales Bill. In my opening remarks I reflected upon whether matters as they relate to the Wales Bill should be determined by

Judicial Committee. I think that they should not.

Mr. John Smith: I agree that it is a different proposition to refer pre-Assent scrutiny to the Judicial Committee in the case of the Scotland Bill on the question of vires but a different matter to give to the courts the delicate matter of deciding whether the Government should exercise reserved powers. My hon. Friend is drawing parallels with matters which are not parallel.

Mr. Watkinson: I should like to address my remarks to the Wales Bill. I shall deal briefly with the question of "public interest". I accept that there must be a certain amount of opaqueness. It is right that the Secretary of State should be able to make decisions on the public interest. There is a parallel with the role of the Attorney-General when he decides whether it is appropriate, in the public interest, to bring certain matters before the courts. If one wishes to move away from a strict legalistic approach—and I think that we should—there must be an area reserved to the Secretary of State in which he can make decisions about whether an infringement goes against the public interest. One has to accept that it will cause difficulties, but with the constitution that we have that is not inappropriate.
Let us examine the position in the House of Commons. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire seemed to be proposing a somewhat cumbersome procedure for dealing with the devolved Assembly when it goes beyond its powers. He suggested that we should have powers to introduce legislation. Presumably that would involve Second Reading, Committee and Report. That would be a cumbersome procedure. Clause 6 deals adequately with this problem.
It must be apparent to the right hon. Gentleman, as it is to me, that our powers are such that it is possible for us to bring before ourselves matters which we consider to be important. I have no doubt that if the Opposition considered that the Secretary of State had acted improperly they could raise the matter on a Supply Day or, if they felt strongly enough, on a motion of censure.

Mr. Pym: It would be possible to do that, but it would not be possible to put


a Question to the House. There would be no possibility of voting on a particular measure, because that would be in the control of the Government.

Mr. Watkinson: Remedies are available to the House to deal with the situation to which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire refers.
The question of whether the Secretary of State has taken a decision in the public interest can be criticised and referred to in the Chamber. Remedies are available. The important thing is that the remedies that are available are such that speedy action can be taken. We should not seek to impose upon ourselves the cumbersome procedures suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. For those reasons, I believe that the provisions in Clause 35 are satisfactory.

Mr. Raison: Normally I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), but I am not wholly persuaded by his argument tonight. Nor am I persuaded that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) has seen the full implications of what will happen.
I shall make a few remarks about the constitutional mechanism. I have no doubt that the Minister of State will accuse me of being Anglo- or Southern Man or that he will attach some other epithet that will show that I am a barbaric Englishman who does not understand. However, one should plan for the worst. One hopes that the worst will never happen. I hope that the Bills will never happen, but if they do I hope that they will work sympathetically.
When talking about reserved powers one must assume that something might go wrong.

Sir David Renton: Does my hon. Friend accept that nearly all legislation plans for the worst? If this were a perfect world there would be no need for legislation.

Mr. Raison: This legislation does plan for the worst, and much of it achieves the worst. My proposition is that, far from these reserved powers being too wide, they are too narrow. I do not believe that we are arming ourselves with sufficient reserved powers.
Although the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West talked about only one aspect, he gave the impression that the Secretary of State will have no say in large areas of dispute but will have a say on points covered by the clause. The hon. Member does not appreciate that during the course of devolution the Government have surrendered to the courts a great deal of the Secretary of State's power.
I can describe the way that this came about by quoting from "Devolution for Scotland and Wales, Supplementary Statement". This simply described a change of heart. It stated that:
Paragraph 208 of Cmnd 6348 envisaged a range of general reserve powers which the Government could exercise, with Parliament's approval, in relation to actions of the Welsh Assembly. The Government have decided on two major changes in these powers. Firstly, there will not be a power, as paragraph 208c had envisaged, for the Government to take back devolved functions. Secondly, the remaining powers to give directions or to annul subordinate instruments (paragraph 208a and b) will be available only if their exercise is considered by the Government necessary to prevent unacceptable repercussions on matters for which they remain responsible.
That marked a substantial change of policy by the Government. It switched from saying that if something went wrong in generalised terms the Government would have a reserved power to put it right, and it moved to the clauses's much more specific provision that if the Welsh Assembly starts to trespass on reserved matters the Government will intervene. The same would apply it the Assembly got caught up in Community matters.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member has it right to a certain extent. It concerns the situation where the operation of the Assembly in its devolved area would have unacceptable repercussions upon a reserve matter. That goes slightly wider than just reserve matters.

Mr. Raison: I take that point. But the Government have no override or reserved power if they believe that in some way the Assembly is failing to do its duty in respect of matters that are clearly within a devolved area and which do not impinge upon reserved powers. I think that is an accurate statement, which I see the Minister accepts.
I am not happy with the reserved or override powers. I believe that they should be greater than they are. Let me illustrate my argument by moving to an important area—perhaps the most important—that is devolved to Wales, namely education. Section 1 of the Education Act 1944 says that it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State for Education and Science—I think that it has now been amended—to include the Secretary of State for Wales—
to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area.
That covers the whole of our educational system.
Under Schedule 2, the Education Acts between 1944 and 1976 are devolved. There are one or two respects in which they are not devolved, but in essence education is devolved to the Assembly. As I understand it, that means that the control and direction of any policy referred to in Section 1 of the 1944 Act now goes quite clearly to the Assembly. The Secretary of State is no longer responsible for the control and direction of educational policy in Wales. It goes to the Assembly, but under an earlier clause the Assembly has the power to offer to one of its members—the leader or chairman of one of its committees, or whoever it may be, the functions of the Secretary of State.
I suppose that the Assembly or its Education Minister, whatever he may be called, will therefore have the function of determining national policy. The Act does not say simply that he must supervise that policy; it gives him some role in determining what education policy should be. National policy, however, is not just a matter of what the Secretary of State says it is; it is also a matter of what the Education Acts say policy is. There is a string of Education Acts between 1944 and 1976. All of them, and particularly the last one, make clear policy decisions. The point is that education policy in Wales will be determined by two different sources. One may say that these will be the fons et origo—the fons will be the 1944 and subsequent

Education Acts. The origo will be the Assembly and its representatives.
On the other hand, where there will be two sources of policy in Wales there will be only one guardian or custodian, with a few limited exceptions, and that custodian, the body or person with the job of implementing the policy, will be the Assembly or a Member of it. The Secretary of State can interfere with the Assembly only if it tramples on reserved territory or on the EEC. As I understand it, the Secretary of State will cease to have any say in the normal implementation of policy on education in Wales.
As I indicated in an earlier intervention, it is perfectly possible—here I come back to the point that we do not know what will happen, but we are prepared for things to go wrong—that the Assembly will decide that it does not like Section 76 of the 1944 Act. That section contains some recognition of parental choice. In other words, when parents are choosing a school for their children their wishes are meant to be taken into account.
The Assembly may say that it does not believe in such a doctrine and that therefore it will do nothing to implement that section. Alternatively, there may be a spirited Tameside-like Tory Welsh Assembly—I am not sure that is what we shall have, assuming that we are to have the Assembly—which takes the view that the highly odious provisions of the 1976 Act should not be operated.
Throughout the 1976 Act there is an interplay between the Secretary of State and the local authorities. In future in Wales that interplay will be between the local authorities and the Assembly. If the Assembly does not want to do anything about implementing the 1976 Act, it is hard to envisage that anything will actually happen.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many parts of Wales the system of selection is creeping back into education? This selection operates through the Welsh language. I do not say that that is a good or a bad thing, but it is a factor that my hon. Friend may care to take into account. Because of the right of Welsh children to be educated in their own language, the process of selection, which provides a qualitative difference between English and Welsh language schools, is creeping back in Wales.

Mr. Raison: That is an interesting point, but it is not germane to my arguments, which are of a wholly academic nature. It is true, however, that throughout the world wherever a policy of selection has been abolished and comprehensive education introduced, selection manages to creep back.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Any selection that may operate does so by parental choice, in that parents are given the opportunity in two counties in Wales of selecting for their children a mainly Welsh medium secondary education or an English medium education. That does not reflect a selection on any other basis. It means that it has been possible to provide a broad range of comprehensive education through the medium of established languages in Wales. The basis of the system is still comprehensive, but because of the flexibility operated by the education authority there has been a linguistic choice within it.

Mr. Raison: I am tempted only to say that one of the things I particularly like about the Welsh and about taking part in Welsh debates is the magical way in which they manage to get the best of all worlds. Here they have persuaded themselves that they have a truly comprehensive system, but they have allowed selection to come back. We see the same sort of thing in the extraordinary relationship of the Welsh National Party with Westminster, in that the nationalists look to that glorious day when they can recover their identity but still want to retain a mystical umbilical cord. They want to achieve full independence, but they also want a large subsidy from London to keep things going.
I am trying to avoid going into the rights and wrongs of education in Wales. I want, instead, to consider what the clause is all about. Therefore I ask hon. Members not to draw me any further on the specifics of education policy but to allow me to continue to discuss constitutional problems.

Mr. Brittan: Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he answer a question that I had in mind about the reserved powers and their lack of impact on this sort of situation? Granted that the reserved powers would not enable the Secretary of State to cause the Welsh Assembly to impose comprehensive education under

the 1976 Act, does not my hon. Friend think that that fact would have meant that if the 1976 Act had been passed at a time when the Welsh Assembly was in existence it would have been necessary for it to be cast in a very different form altogether, much more directorial in impact than the way in which it has in fact been drawn, to have any impact on Wales at all?

Mr. Raison: That is an interesting point, which had not occurred to me. It has a great deal of validity.
1 am arguing that I am not persuaded that these reserved powers are adequate. I am not persuaded that the Government's decision in the White Paper from which I have quoted was a wise and sensible one. As I have said, the reserved powers embodied in the clause certainly do not give the Secretary of State the task of seeing that the Assembly operates the law of the land.
That brings me back to the problem on which I touched last night and which seems to me to be the fundamental weakness of the Government's scheme for Wales. I do not believe that it is possible to separate legislation for national policy—we are talking now about the law of the land in respect of Wales—from the execution of national policy. The whole notion in the Bill that legislation and execution can be carried out at quite different levels of government is very hard to justify. I am glad to see the Minister of State perking up. I look forward to hearing his justification.
I shall try to explain the matter. It is perfectly true that a Government can come to power and find themselves saddled with Acts that they do not like. When we Conservatives return to power we shall find on the statute book the Education Act 1976. But we have a very simple remedy—to chuck out that Act. I look forward to doing that. However, the position in regard to Welsh Assembly is that when the Welsh Government—perhaps I may use that term—come to power, they will find themselves having to operate Acts which they may intensely dislike but which they have no chance of getting rid of. They have no power to legislate, as we know, and that is a great difficulty.
Of course, it will be said that local government has always had to operate


under this kind of constraint. I can imagine the argument being put forward that a Socialist local authority has to operate under Tory laws. Of course, that is true, but I do not really think that that is a valid analogy.
For one thing, there is normally an enforcement mechanism for local government. My recollection is that in the Education Act 1944 there is a passage very near the end of the Act which gives the Government some sort of power, in an extreme, to put in a commissioner, or something of that sort. It is something of a model of the power to put in a commissioner that led to some brouhaha concerning the Housing Finance Act 1972.
It would not be wrong to say—I do not think that the Minister would quarrel with me on this—that in many other pieces of legislation there is clearly power for central Government to intervene if local government does not follow the law of the land. Even where that is not spelt out, it is fairly evident that central Government have certain very powerful arm-twisting mechanisms.
Secondly, however—this is the real point; perhaps it is even more important than my previous point—local government has no claim to lay down overall national policy, while the Welsh Assembly is quite specifically to be given the power by, as it were, the acquisition of Section 1 of the 1944 Education Act, to lay down Welsh national educational policy—subject only to what is stated in the law of the land.
In other words, it is what might be called the non-statute making part of national educational policy that represents a collection of very powerful instruments. It enables powerful subordinate legislation to be brought in, and in the case of education and other matters it allows the printing of circulars that are not the law of the land but have, nevertheless, great powers. We know that it includes the operation of the rate support grant, which has pretty powerful implications. I think that I am right in saying that it includes control over capital programmes, and so on and so forth. It can be seen that this adds up to a set of very big powers.
Let me take an extreme example of something that I do not think is likely to happen. Let us suppose that the Welsh

Assembly decided to adopt a rather Quebec-like policy about language. Let us suppose that it said "We shall now operate exactly the same conditions as the Quebec Government have recently introduced, saying that a person can learn English only if his parents learnt English", or something of that kind. I do not think that Plaid Cymru would be so brutal as to wish to introduce something like that. I know that there would not be enough Welsh speakers in Wales for that to be a tenable proposition. There is a different balance from that which exists in Quebec.
8.15 p.m.
Nevertheless, something of that kind might come about. Let us suppose that the Assembly decided to operate a policy of that sort. I believe that it would have a lot of very powerful instruments at its disposal. It would not have the right to pass a law saying that a child could learn English only if his parents were English, or something of that kind, but it would have the right to use all the other devices—rate support grants, circulars, control of the capital programme, and control of all the other bits and pieces of the apparatus that a modern Government, perhaps unfortunately, have at their disposal.
Therefore, as I have said, things could go wrong. In my view, the clause does nothing to resolve this difficulty. It does not provide adequate means for central Government to make sure that both the spirit and the letter of the law of the land in general are being effectively operated under a Welsh Assembly. I believe, therefore, that we need stronger reserved powers to uphold the law and to align policy with the law.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he accepts what I have said as being an accurate factual statement—obviously, he will not agree with the argument—and whether it is the case that the duty of seeing that the law is implemented will now not, in effect, in any way fall on the Secretary of State except in relation to the specific questions of reserved powers and the Community.
I say to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West that what emerges from this is that, as a consequence of the Government's change of heart in the White Paper, if there is a dispute about


the law of the land, the body that will decide it is the courts. If the Assembly were failing to implement the Education Act 1944, or something else, the only remedy that anyone would have would be to take the matter to the courts. Therefore, having changed their minds, the Government have enlarged the power of the courts as opposed to that of the Secretary of State.
That must be true. The Minister of State can tell me whether I am wrong but I do not see how it could be otherwise. If, for example, the Welsh Assembly refused to implement Section 76, the section concerning parental choice, which I have quoted, I should have thought that the only remedy that would exist would be for an aggrieved parent to hire my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) as his counsel and to take the matter to the courts. That is not always a very easy thing to do.

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Member can clarify my thinking, at least on this matter. I see a difference between something that is ultra vires and something that is reserved. Whether or not matters are ultra vires has always been a question for the courts, but whether a matter is reserved is a new concept, initiated under the devolution Bills.

Mr. Raison: I am arguing that the Secretary of State should have a power to intervene if the Welsh Assembly wilfully decides not to implement the law of the land. That is the essence of what I am arguing.

Mr. Brittan: Surely the position is that what the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) has said is not correct, because a definition of what a reserved matter is appears in subsection (3). A reserved matter is one
which concerns Wales…but with respect to which the Assembly has no power to act.
It is wrong to say that this is a pure policy matter, because we are talking about something having an effect on a reserved matter, and a reserved matter is therefore defined as something that the Assembly cannot deal with.
Perhaps I may also draw my hon. Friend's attention to Clause 72, which says that

Without prejudice to any power exercisable apart from this section, the Attorney General may institute, and the Assembly may defend, proceedings for the determination of any question whether anything done or proposed to be done by the Assembly is within its powers.
Therefore, the idea that the courts have no role in this matter is farcical.

Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It would be helpful if the Minister would say something at an appropriate stage, now or later, about the Attorney-General's role, to which my hon. Friend has just referred, and whether that would apply when the Assembly was failing to implement an Act as well as in the circumstances that were read out.
I believe that the courts have a fairly wide power—indeed, in some ways the sole power—in respect of matters that are not reserved. I do not get hysterical at the notion of the courts having a role to fulfil. I think that it is entirely right that they should operate as they always have. What worries me is the rather arbitrary nature of the arrangement. There are some matters which are to be decided by the Secretary of State, and those are covered in the clause. There are others which would have to be left to the courts, whether or not prompted by the intervention of the Attorney-General. My view is that we need stronger and more clear-cut powers than are given to us in the clause, and I regret that the Government should have taken part in the retreat that was outlined in their White Paper.

Mr. Ian Gow: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) moved the amendment, with which we are taking a series of amendments affecting Clauses 35 and 36, he asked the Committee what would be the procedure for monitoring whether the Secretary of State ought to take action under those clauses. I think that my right hon. Friend was right to pose that question.
It would be my prediction that the increase by 1,150 in the number of civil servants—the figure which appears in the last paragraph of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum—will turn out to be a massive understatement, not least because there really will have to be very careful monitoring powers indeed if the


Secretary of State is to carry out the duties laid upon him by Clauses 35 and 36.
At first sight, of course, Clause 35 (1) and Clause 36 (1) appear to be similar, but there is an astonishing difference in the wording. We are told in Clause 35 (1) that the Secretary of State may take action
if it appears to him desirable in the public interest",
whereas in Clause 36 the wording is
that the public interest makes it desirable".
We appear to have a much more objective test in Clause 36 and a much more subjective test in Clause 35.
In a sense, it is difficult to see how the powers contained in Clause 36 could ever be exercised if the Secretary of State had exercised properly the powers granted to him in Clause 35, because Clause 35 refers to his powers to intervene where there is a proposed action, whereas Clause 36 gives him power to intervene where action has already been taken.
I find it extremely difficult to understand why a Secretary of State should take action under his reserve powers in Clause 36 when an instrument has been made by the Assembly, because surely, if that were ultra vires, he should have taken action already under Clause 35 when the Assembly was proposing to take action. In a sense, Clause 36 is a long-stop to give further powers to the Secretary of State when he has spotted something only when it is de facto and he should have spotted when it was merely a proposal.
I believe that Clauses 35 and 36 will prove to be a recipe for total and continuing conflict. Although my right hon. Friend's amendment diminishes the mischief, the answer is that these clauses, however amended, will put the Secretary of State into a position where he will not exercise a judicial or a quasi-judicial function. It will be essentially a political function, and a political function to a much greater degree in Clause 35 than in Clause 36.
Who decides, under Clause 35, whether the public interest requires the Secretary of State to take action to prevent something which will be ultra vires? It is a breathtaking constitutional position that, where the Secretary of State believes something is to be done which is ultra

vires, nevertheless he is not obliged to take action to prevent something which is unlawful unless it appears to him to be desirable in the public interest to stop the Assembly doing something which is ultra vires and therefore unlawful.
That is an astonishing degree of permissiveness, even for this Government, and there ought to be the most clear-cut formula—I do not see how else it could be done save through the courts—to the effect that when the Assembly is proposing to do something which is ultra vires, as envisaged in Clause 35, or when it is actually doing something which is ultra vires, as envisaged in Clause 36, there must be mechanism to stop the Assembly either proposing or implementing something which is ultra vires.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) referred the Committee to Clause 72, but there is no duty laid upon the Attorney-General in Clause 72. He does not have to decide whether something is in the public interest. It is purely permissive. We could have the position that, although the Secretary of State believes that what the Assembly is proposing to do is ultra vires or that an instrument made by the Assembly is ultra vires, in neither of those two cases was he under an obligation to take action. Under Clause 35 it is only if it appears to him to be in the public interest, and under Clause 36 it is only if the public interest makes it desirable.
Although I agree that the test is more subjective in Clause 35 than it is in Clause 36, and although it could be argued—notably by my hon. Friend—that certainly under Clause 36 the Secretary of State has to exercise his discretion honestly and objectively, I think that even my hon. Friend would be hard put to it to persuade the Court of Appeal that there was not very wide discretionary power given to the Secretary of State under Clause 35.

Mr. Brittan: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the matter is made worse by the fact that, as a result of such decisions as that of the House of Lords in the Gouriet case, there is no way of compelling the Attorney-General to exercise his powers under Clause 72 if he does not choose to do so? What is more, there is no right for anyone else to take


action in the courts, because almost certainly there would be no standing for anyone else to do so.

Mr. Gow: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. Of course, the position is made even more absurd because, if the Attorney-General has to be brought in under Clause 72, that must mean, almost by definition, that the Secretary of State has failed to carry out the duties laid upon him under Clauses 35 and 36.
What I find so incredible is the fact that we shall have duties laid upon two members of an Administration—the Secretary of State, who presumably, even if the Bill becomes law, will be in the Cabinet, and the Attorney-General as the chief legal adviser to the Cabinet. Surely the Attorney-General should have given advice to the Secretary of State to take action under Clauses 35 and 36 without allowing a situation to develop where he himself would have to come in under Clause 72.

8.30 p.m.

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Although the hon. Gentleman is about to conclude, throughout the whole of his contribution he has referred to Clauses 35 and 36 but has made no reference at all to the amendment under discussion. I may be wrong, but at this stage we are not discussing whether Clauses 35 and 36 should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Gow: I feel that the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire would improve these clauses and remove the possibility of conflict. That is my belief, and that is why I support the amendment.

Mr. Temple-Morris: This has been an interesting and not too lengthy debate, even though there has been tortuous discussion in the various contributions that we have had, not least the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and Alyesbury (Mr. Raison). With due respect, although I very much support what he said, it seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury was crying out against the whole principle of the Bill and this form of devolution. I was waiting for him to suggest some sort of out-

come whereby the Assembly could be controlled in the considerable use of its powers as well as in manipulating them to further use than might be intended by this piece of legislation.

Mr. Raison: What I did was to pray in aid the Government themselves, who originally intended that they would have to carry out general reserve powers. But the Government then decided to relinquish that intention. I was arguing that I was sorry that these general reserve powers should have been relinquished.

Mr. Temple-Morris: That clarifies the matter somewhat more. Doubtless the Minister of State will deal with it.
With respect to my hon. Friend, however, while Amendment No. 225 does not go quite as far as those general reserve powers it goes a considerable way towards them. In many respects my hon. Friend was not relating his argument to the reserve powers as defined in Schedule 2 but rather was relating it to Amendment No. 225, which states:
If it appears to the Secretary of State—

(a) that any action proposed to be taken by the Assembly would affect, directly or indirectly, any matter with respect to which the Assembly has no power to act".
That goes quite a long way towards what my hon. Friend was saying. He could afford to be more charitable to the amendment. I am glad that my Front Bench agrees with that somewhat loyalist observation.
I interpreted what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said as a general cry concerning matters upon which the Assembly would be given powers to act. I shall come in a moment to the powers given in this clause. But things like rate support grant, capital programmes and—with all due respect to the Welsh nationalists—the use of the Welsh language are matters of pure power to be exercised in one way or another by the Welsh Assembly, no more and no less.
I am afraid that the powers given by Clause 35 and covered by these amendments will make very little difference to the use of those powers. I shall deal briefly with Clause 35 as it stands. It seems to me that it is in order to argue—in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury—that they are quite Draconian in their effect. If one goes through Schedule 2 and looks at the


various matters reserved and then turns to the phraseology of Clause 35(1)(a) and (b), it can be argued that the Secretary of State can give directions on a very wide range of matters. I have only to quote Clause 35(1)(a):
any action proposed to be taken by the Assembly which would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly".
Many matters can be brought within that consideration. I am arguing the Opposite way from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury in taking the clause as it reads; "directly or indirectly" can cover a multitude of matters.
Clause 35(3) concerns Wales. I accept that limitation, but it also includes these words:
whether or not it also concerns any other part of the United Kingdom".
In arguing that these powers could affect a wide range of matters, I am reinforcing the argument that this is a recipe for clash, and that is the dilemma in which the Minister of State finds himself. At the end of the day he has to say "Here they are. They are such as we have been able to devise; they are not very effective. Take them and vote upon them." He must know that any Secretary of State who gives a direction to an Assembly on education, the rate support grant and so on has to fall back on the House of Commons, because the House of Commons has to approve an order for that direction. That is a recipe for clash and division, which means that Clause 35 and its related and associated provisions will result in impotence. I cannot see those powers ever being used effectively.
I hope that the Minister of State will give examples of how he will attempt to control the more extreme element of Welsh politics if, under the present electoral system, such an element were able in mid-term elections to take control. This can be argued inside or outside, but at the end of the day one comes down to the fact that the Bill is unrealistic. It is not a good piece of legislation. When one gets to the semantics of the argument, one realises how ridiculous the Bill is.

Mr. Ian Grist: My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) is right in saying that the Government do not know whether they are coming or going. At one time

they talked in terms of legislative powers, and that would have been relatively clear-cut. The Government backed away from that and wanted to give executive powers, but they found that that also was difficult, so we are in a half-way house with Clause 35. We have this marvellous language which if one were still doing philosophy one could tear to pieces:
if it appears to the Secretary of State…indirectly … might be affected".
What do those words mean? What is meant by:
desirable in the public interest"?
Every politician knows what that means. It is something that is in his political interest, in his electoral interest, in his party's interest. That is what it will always mean. When the party in control of the Assembly is not the party in control at Westminster, it is a recipe for conflict.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), in moving the amendment, tried to tighten up this state of affairs, although my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) thought that the clause was possibly too restrictive. One can argue this case both ways. One can either increase the powers of Westminster or make the Assembly more workable. It is one way or the other. As it is, we have a complete mish-mash. I refer here to the guidelines issued by the Secretary of State for Wales some time ago when he urged us to judge the devolution proposals on the basis that any change proposed should be quite clear. The Secretary of State said that. But clear is the very last thing that the clause can claim to be.
I am not too clear about what is meant by
Any action capable of being so taken".
Perhaps it refers to some inaction of the Secretary of State, or perhaps it is ultra vires. I simply do not know.
Although the clause and the amendment may be important, there is an air of unreality about this whole debate. We have only one hon. Member from a Welsh constituency present in the Chamber, and he is opposed to the Bill. The Minister is here, and he is only half in support of it—

The First Deputy Chairman: I am glad that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) has mentioned that fact, because the hon. Member for Bedwellty


(Mr. Kinnock) seems to have joined the Government Front Bench in support of the Bill.

Mr. Kinnock: The problem I have, Sir Myer, is whether I should consider this an elevation or a relegation. Perhaps you could inform me sometime in the future.

The First Deputy Chairman: That depends on the hon. Member's behaviour in the future.

Mr. Grist: I do not know whether to congratulate or commiserate with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock).
When we come to the referendum, the Bill and every proposal in it will be thrown out and it will be shown that we have been wasting our time utterly.

Mr. John Smith: We have had a short but interesting debate on the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). As he conceded, the amendment uses the phraseology of the old Scotland and Wales Bill to define reserve powers. It is interesting that whenever the Opposition criticise something in this Bill they refer to something in the Scotland Bill as if that provided a better solution. I was not aware that Opposition Members had such enthusiasm for the Scotland Bill.
Speeches from hon. Members opposite, particularly the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, criticised this form of devolution because it is not legislative. But the right hon. Member had plenty to say about the sins of omission of legislative devolution when we were discussing it under the Scotland Bill.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that he hoped that I would not criticise him for being niggling. I shall never criticise him on that score if he will promise me that he will stop referring to Scotland and Wales as "the Celtic fringe". That kind of phrase indicates that he is a Southern man. I do not suppose that he understands that there is anything offensive about it.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister of State promise me that in future he will use the word "Celtic" with a hard "C" instead of a soft one?

Mr. Smith: Certainly I shall seek to do that, provided that I am allowed to

use a different phraseology when I am talking about a certain football team.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said that what we put forward in the Scotland and Wales Bill was more meritorious than anything in the Scotland Bill. It is true that we did not discuss the override clauses in either the Scotland Bill or the Scotland and Wales Bill. What attitude he would have taken to the Scotland and Wales Bill had we discussed that formulation when we reached it I do not know.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: On that point, I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have expressed such ignorance, because in doing so he has shown himself to be less than his usual meticulous self. Although the Government guillotine did not permit discussion on the Scotland Bill, the most cursory glance at all the amendments laid down in the name of the official Opposition will be seen to have raised exactly the same points in relation to the Scotland Bill as are now being raised, but by a more happy coincidence those are actually being reached on the Wales Bill.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is unfair to me, uncharacteristically, because I was referring not to the Scotland Bill but to the formulation in the Scotland and Wales Bill. He well knows that the formuation in the Scotland Bill is the same as in the Wales Bill. I was pointing out that it would have been interesting to know what the right hon. Gentleman would have said about the override clauses in the Scotland and Wales Bill had we reached them. I suspect that there would have been the gentlest of criticisms of their formulation, had we discussed them. It is a great pity that we did not do so on the Scotland and Wales Bill, but no guillotine can be blamed for that; it was because of the length of time that was taken in discussion and the attitude of the House that we did not reach that. I hope that the hon. Member will not think me over-critical if I am slightly suspicious that the right hon. Gentleman would not have approached it in the same spirit of adoption as he now shows.

Mr. Pym: In putting forward these amendments we have taken a constructive approach in trying to make less bad a Bill to which we thoroughly object. We


have not debated Clauses 35 and 46, as in the Scotland and Wales Bill. I addressed my remarks to this group of amendments, as I was entitled to do. It is not right for the Minister to make sweeping generalisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury widened the debate to some extent and raised many of the points that would have come up had we debated Clause 46 of the Scotland and Wales Bill, but the hon. Gentleman should not take it that because the form of words used in the Bill was taken from that Bill we would have accepted Clause 46 had we debated it in its full width and breadth, which I did not seek to do this afternoon in moving the amendment.

Mr. Smith: I am not seeking to be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman or to make too much of this, but it confirms my view that he would no doubt have been a little critical had we reached that provision in the Scotland and Wales Bill. I am glad that the process of education is going on and that what appeared in the Scotland and Wales Bill is now respectable. I shall explain that to the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury has pointed out, there was a change. It was made clear in the Lord President's statement to the House. In this Bill the matter was formulated differently from the form that was used in the Scotland and Wales Bill.
I do not believe it would be wise for the House to accept the amendment, because the conditions precedent for policy override must of necessity be based on the judgment of the Government, a judgment exercised in the shape of the Secretary of State, and that judgment must inevitably be to a degree subjective. The test
that any action proposed to be taken by the Assembly would affect, directly or indirectly, any matter with respect to which the Assembly has no power to act
is too narrow to be effective. There might be too great a burden of proof if the sole test were a requirement to demonstrate in advance that an action of the Assembly would have unacceptable repercussions on a reserved matter and could make policy override difficult to use or perhaps be unnecessarily controversial if used. There is a certain element of judgment in the matter. We would prefer slightly wider powers and would wish to keep the words "or might" in the definition. That

was a point covered by one of the amendments.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point on which he has spoken before. One way of dealing with this is to have legislation and just to use the sovereign power of this Parliament to pass a piece of legislation effectively annulling or overriding something which the Assembly has done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) pointed out in his speech and in an intervention, we think that this would be an unnecessarily cumbersome procedure. In many cases it might be taking a steam hammer to crack a nut if the matter to which objection were taken was not of very great consequence.
There is also the difficulty that it is not always easy to fit Westminster legislation into the often overcrowded programmes of Governments, irrespective of party. It is easier to use an override mechanism for the procedure, subject to parliamentary approval. Such a mechanism can be initiated only by the Secretary of State, by the Executive here. That is a matter to which we shall come later, since there is an Opposition amendment proposing that this power should rest on a parliamentary initiative. It is better to use the method in the Bill, involving parliamentary procedure, without having to go to the fuss and bother of passing special legislation every time we want to override an action of the Assembly.

Mr. Raison: Will the hon. Gentleman say a little about the point that I raised? What would happen if the Assembly failed to carry out its duties? I am not now talking about the reserved powers: I am talking about the general point. What would happen if the Assembly failed to carry out the law of the land? What powers do the Government envisage as existing to remedy that?

Mr. Smith: It is inconceivable that the Assembly would not carry out the duties laid upon it by Act of Parliament.

Mr. Raison: This argument can be taken in two ways. It so happens that one of the provisions of the 1944 Education Act was that there should be a central advisory council for England and Wales. There has not been such a council since 1967. For 10 or 11 years this Government and their Tory predecessors


have failed to carry out the provisions of that Act. The Minister cannot possibly argue that it is automatically the case that the requirements of Acts of Parliament are carried out by Governments, whether national or, in this case, regional.

Mr. Smith: We are concerned with a serious breach of the law and not with possibly minor matters which are sufficiently small not to agitate anyone. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we ought to write in powers to enable the appointment of commissioners, I have to say that we do not think that it is necessary to do that. Many constitutions work adequately without formal mechanisms. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the fascinating things about the constitution of the United States is that the United States Supreme Court does not seem to have a mechanism for enforcing its judgments, yet they are universally accepted by the states concerned, although a highly developed concept of the rights of states is a permanent feature of the American political structure. I dare say that it will be possible for the Government to have recourse to the courts in certain circumstances. It would depend upon the situation that arose. I do not think that it is a likely possibility that the Assembly will deliberately defy the law—

Mr. Raison: Mr. Raison rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Before we proceed on this subject in any depth, I would like the Chair to be shown where the question being discussed at the moment arises in the amendment, or even in Clause 35. I do not see it anywhere. This is something that could be dealt with on Report or Third Reading.

Mr. Smith: This is not a point related to the amendment. You are absolutely right, Sir Myer, if I may respectfully say so. The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked me an intriguing question and I was seeking to give him an answer. I must accept your stricture and move on to the meat of the amendment.
What we are talking about is not to do with what happens if the Assembly deliberately does not implement the law but whether we should adopt the formula

to override that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire is proposing or whether the method already in the Bill is better. To a certain extent this is a matter of judgment. The Government changed the formulation, and that was spelled out in the policy statement to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury referred. The hon. Member does not really want devolution at all; he wants powers considerably greater than those sought even by his own Front Bench. I understand that.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury does not believe in the concept at all. He wants to devolve as little as possible and, having devolved, to keep as much overriding control as can possibly be achieved. But we have to have a balance; we do not want to have powers that would mean that the Assembly could be circumscribed from any effective initiatives and policies of its own.
Devolution involves the granting to the Assembly of effective powers. We have to keep a balance, as we are still very much a United Kingdom and the Assemblies are subordinate institutions. There must be adequate reserved powers for the United Kingdom Government and Parliament to protect United Kingdom interests. On the other hand, there must be sufficient powers for the Assembly to work out its own distinctive policies and a genuine freedom of action and initiative. It is to get that balance right that we are seeking to have these reserved powers.
At one end of the spectrum there is the total unionist, such as the hon. Member for Aylesbury. I am not indicating that there is anything discreditable in that position. There is, at the other end of the scale, the total separatist. That is quite a consistent position to hold. We are neither; we are very much attached to the unity of the United Kingdom, but we do not think that the best way to preserve it is by keeping all the nations of the United Kingdom in the same straitjacket. Therefore, we seek to have some reserved powers consistent with genuine initiative for the Assembly.
In the statement of July 1977 we explained the reasons why we wished to make the change. We do not think that it is necessary to have a power of policy override in respect of the possible repercussions of what might be termed the


English dimension of the devolved matter. One of the merits of devolution, as I have often argued, is that it will allow reasonable diversity within the continuing unity of the United Kingdom.
The Government do not consider that there should be a power of policy override merely because an action of the Welsh Assembly in a devolved area might be inconvenient for the United Kingdom Government of the day. We believe that policy override should be kept in reserve in case it is needed to protect matters which lie at the heart of the continuing unity of the United Kingdom, such as defence, trade, economy, energy, industrial policy, and the like. We do not consider that it is necessary to have a power of policy override, for example, to interfere with something that is done by the Welsh Assembly on education matters simply because it affects English education.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury disagrees with that. He would like power to circumscribe the Assembly in almost every sphere. We differ in judgment on this point. We see it as important to reserve such power on, for example, energy, but not on English education.

Mr. Raison: The Minister has misinterpreted my argument. I was saying that we have a law, which the Minister does not deny will continue to apply to Wales just as much as it always applied in the past—namely, the Education Act 1944. I was merely asking how the Government expect to make sure that the Education Act 1944 continues to be implemented in Wales.
The Minister made a comparison with the United States which I do not think was valid. The essence of the United States is that they wish to remain united. The fact about Wales is that there is a group of people who wish to be disunited. There was an occasion when the United States wished to be disunited. That was at the time of the American Civil War, and that showed that the federation was able to take firm action.

Mr. Smith: I did not intend that my analogy should go into that area. I was concerned with a very simple point about the enforcement of judgments.
The hon. Gentleman may reflect—I hope that I am not straying too far out

of order—that he is under a misapprehension if he thinks that anything other than a tiny minority of the people of Wales do not wish to maintain fully the unity of the United Kingdom and that the vast majority of the people who would be elected to the Welsh Assembly would not be dedicated to the unity of the United Kingdom. In that respect, it will be the same as the United States, where I accept that the majority of people want to maintain the integrity of the union of the United States of America.
9.0 p.m.
On Second Reading of the Scotland and Wales Bill and in other devolution proceedings there was an argument that the override clause powers in the Scotland and Wales Bill went too wide. It was suggested that we should not have powers as wide as we had in the Scotland and Wales Bill. We listened to that criticism at the time and came to the conclusion that it was wiser to have a more restricted power of intervention on override.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire referred to a slightly wider power in some respects, so that it could include the English dimension, as it were, as well as other matters. But we take a different view. Our judgment was reached some time ago, and the result is in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had changed our policy. We have made no secret about that change of policy. We announced it some time ago.
I turn now to the way in which we see the override operating. I hope that it will not be a frequent occurrence. The fact that these powers are present will in many cases resolve any possible conflicts. I am sure that, with these powers in the background, it will be possible to reach a satisfactory conclusion on any disputes between the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Assembly. I do not imagine for a moment that with split or shared powers there will not be difficulties at the edges. Of course there will be difficulties at the edges, but the benefits to be gained from decentralisation outweigh the difficulties. I believe that it is possible for us to deal with these matters in a constructive spirit of good will and good relationships, which are a feature of our institutions. That applies to Scotland as well as to Wales. However, it is necessary


to have these powers, and I believe that we have the balance just about right.

Mr. Grist: The Minister of State referred to some rough edges. It is all very well to talk of the Assembly being set up with the good will of the people of Wales. If such an Assembly came into being, its representatives would come largely from the Labour Party, which is deeply divided on the question whether there should be an Assembly, the Tory Party, which is opposed, the Liberal Party, which wants a federal structure, and Plaid Cymru, which does not want the structure but wants independence. Therefore, there will not be any good will. The rough edges will snarl up the whole system.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman seems to have a curious view of the people of Wales. The Assembly will come into operation only if they approve of it in a referendum. That is the answer to his question. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that if the Bill is passed by Parliament and approved by the people of Wales in a referendum, the setting up of the Assembly will be obstructed by Conservative Members or others, because of their views, that will be an unfortunate outlook for Wales. I am sure that people will seek to make the Assembly work—even those who are opposed to its being set up—because they will accept it as a fact of life. The normal spirit of public service will prevail and people will seek to make it work to the best of their ability. Indeed, they may in the process discover that it is not half as bad as they thought when they opposed it.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said that he hoped that the override power would not be used very often or that it might be thought a licence or an invitation to interfere. The wider or the stronger the reserved powers, the more they look like a licence or an invitation to interfere. We must try to get the balance right. We believe that we have got it right by giving sufficient initiative and power to the Assembly.
I do not know why the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) should find that an odd concept. It is a sensible concept to get the right balance. We believe that we have achieved the

right balance. That is why I recommend this formulation to the Committee.

Mr. Brittan: I was going to answer some of these points if I managed to catch your eye at a later stage, Sir Myer. The reason why I demur is that it seems that the Minister is trying to have it all possible ways. On the one hand, it is a question of getting the balance right. On the other hand, he suggests that putting in the stronger power of override is an indication that it will be used often, and therefore it is better not to have such power. That seems an insupportable proposition. It is complete guesswork, when founding a legislative creature such as the Assembly on the basis of speculation, whether a weaker or stronger override power will act as a more or a less effective deterrent. It seems that we are building a constitutional structure on shifting sand.

Mr. Smith: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Like most politicians, I am anxious to have it as many ways as I can, but that is not an uncommon feature of the way in which we conduct ourselves in this place. The hon. Gentleman must remember that his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire said that the existence of these powers might be construed as a licence or an invitation to interfere. I do not follow that argument. I think that it is necessary to have reserved powers.

Mr. Pym: I was making the point that the powers are drawn so widely that they amount to a licence or invitation.

Mr. Smith: The giving of wider powers of control to include the English dimension as well as the United Kingdom dimension might equally be construed in that way. The formula in the Scotland and Wales Bill was a wider power of override than in this Bill. I suppose that some argument could be made about that.
We have had an opportunity to consider these powers. An opposite formula has come from the Opposition. I believe that the Government are wise to have retained a formula that includes the concept of balance.

Mr. Pym: Do the words "public interest" have any significance or meaning? If so, what interpretation does the


hon. Gentleman expect to be put upon those words?
Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman agree that he has not answered my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who asked how the law will be insisted upon and carried out in Wales after the Bill is enacted, if it ever is? My hon. Friend raised various examples, especially in relation to education. I do not think that the Minister has indicated how the law would be imposed and carried out in Wales. He has simply said that in his opinion the Assembly would be of a character that would lead those involved to want to carry out its functions. He has said that they will be responsible people and that the majority of them will want Wales to remain part of the United Kingdom. However, that is no answer to the situation postulated by my hon. Friend. I think that he made his point with great force and accuracy. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the whole Committee would like to know the answer to the question.

Mr. Smith: I think that the hon. Member for Aylesbury knows that the Assembly will be responsible in Wales for the carrying out of education policy so far as it affects Wales. If that can be described as a national policy, the Assembly will be responsible for it. It will be a policy for Wales. I said "can be described as" because I believe that the hon. Gentleman was thinking of national policy as being United Kingdom policy. That is probably right. We all know that that is part and parcel of the devolution scheme.
Primary legislation will be carried out by the House of Commons. The Assembly will have to operate within that framework. It will be responsible for education policy within that framework. As I have said, primary legislation will be dealt with by the House of Commons.
The other question raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury was much more fundamental. He asked what would happen if the Welsh Assembly flatly refused to accept or operate a directive. He wanted to know the mechanism that would be used for enforcing it. That is a deep constitutional stream down which to paddle. I should be out of order if I were to stray into that territory.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire asked how we would interpret the

"public interest". That is extremely difficult to forsee. The term "public interest" is often used in Acts of Parliament. In this instance the Secretary of State has to satisfy himself that a reserved matter would or might be affected and, in addition, whether it would be desirable in the public interest to use the powers that the Bill provides.
It is quite impossible to give a precise definition in advance of how the Secretary of State would interpret "public interest". It is useful for that term to be included, as it means that the Secretary of State need not take action if he thinks that it will not be in the public interest to do so. The important thing is that he will have to come before Parliament and justify the use of these powers. That course will have to be passed by Parliament. Before the Secretary of State decides to intervene and to use the powers he will have to satisfy himself that he has a convincing case for so doing, and a case that will be approved by Parliament.
The Government have put forward a sensible and intelligent way of going about these matters. I hope that the Committee will accept the way in which the Bill stands and that it will not accept the amendment.

Sir A. Meyer: The incursions of Scotsmen into Welsh affairs have not always been too happy, to judge by recent events at Cardiff Arms Park, but the Minister of State has handsomely restored the balance. One shudders to think what shape the Bill would be in without his presence.
The Minister has not had much support, however, from his Welsh colleagues. I speak as a representative of the only Welsh party which has half its Members present in the Chamber, and has had throughout these proceedings. Especially noticeable is the total absence at this moment of any Welsh Labour Back Bencher at all and the absence throughout the debate of any Welsh Members favourable to the Bill.
I am a little sorry, Sir Myer, that you did not call me later in the debate, because I have been listening—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The debate has to finish at 11 o'clock, so I do not know how late I can call the hon. Gentleman. I understood that


the Opposition Front Bench spokesman was prepared to give time for the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) to make his speech.

Sir A. Meyer: Naturally, I am very grateful to you, Sir Myer, for calling me at all, especially when you have so many to choose from.
I have been listening to the debate, trying to find a solution to this problem which I could find intellectually convincing. Although, when the Committee divides, I shall be supporting my right hon. Friend's amendment, despite its awful syntax—almost as awful as that of the Bill itself—I do not find his set of solutions anything but slightly less bad than the solutions in the Bill.
If I keep asking myself why I can find no satisfactory way of providing for override powers, I am driven back to the point at which I started, perhaps not surprisingly—that the reason why the whole business of override powers is insoluble is that the set-up is absolutely unworkable.
Even before we started on this devolution road, there were already problems of demarcation between English and Welsh administration. Every Welsh Member is only too familiar with them. We are constantly writing letters to Government Departments only to get the reply that the matter is the province of the Welsh Office, which will be replying in due course. That means a further fortnight's delay, and when we get the Welsh Office reply we know that it has been written in an English Department and has merely been given a Welsh Office imprint.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones) indicated dissent.

Sir A. Meyer: On points of detail, obviously the replies emanate from the Welsh Office, but not when we ask what the Government's policy is, for example, in agriculture, transport or education.

Mr. Alec Jones: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that agriculture has not been a devolved subject until now and that, therefore, it would be completely unreasonable to expect an answer from the Welsh Office. However, with the devolving of agricultural powers, he will receive his substantive answers on agricultural questions from the Welsh Office.

Sir A. Meyer: As I understood it, until now agriculture has been a joint responsibility in Wales of the Welsh Office and the Ministry of Agriculture. I am not trying to say that if I have a detailed question of the Welsh Office, I do not get a proper answer. I get very proper and courteous answers. My point, with which every Welsh Member will sympathise, is that we write to a Government Department to ask what is its policy on a particular range of subjects—like education and transport, particularly social services and the whole vast field covered by the Department of the Environment—and are told that they are matters for the Welsh Office. It is only because the question is asked by a Welsh Member that the reply has to come from the Welsh Office.
That shows that there are already demarcation problems between Welsh and English administration. They are not serious and can be sorted out by administrative action. The solution is built into the system, and if there are difficulties they are administrative difficulties. They cause delays and irritation but nothing worse.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Surely the hon. Gentleman has had the same experience as I on this matter—namely, that a question of general principle not related to a geographical area can be raised with the Minister for Housing and Construction. I have raised matters personally and I have always had courteous replies from that Minister. If it is a housing matter related to Wales it is transferred to the Welsh Office, as it should have been in the first place. However, the demarcation is clear.

9.15 p.m.

Sir A. Meyer: My experience does not coincide with the hon. Gentleman's. We ask Questions in the House and we receive ministerial answers, but there are occasions when difficulty is experienced. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts), who unfortunately has left the Committee, told me that on a number of occasions recently he tried to obtain an answer on policy from an English Department but has been referred to the Welsh Office purely because he is a Welsh Member. I do not wish to labour the point. I am trying to suggest that the solutions to the problem are built into the existing system,


whereas under the system outlined in the Bill there will be an aggravation of existing demarcation disputes.
In a speech on an earlier amendment, I used the adjective "corrosive" to describe the structure laid down in the Bill. It will corrode the fabric of the United Kingdom. Nowhere is this corrosive effect more apparent than in the area of reserved and override powers. These provisions will build in areas of conflict. There is nothing in the Bill as drafted—or, I regret to say, in the amendment—that will diminish that damaging effect. It is true that an attempt is made in the schedules closely to define the permitted power of the Assembly, but the point has been made in speech after speech on both sides of the Committee, and on both sides of the argument, that whenever a directly elected Assembly is set up it automatically tries to increase its powers.
We have been unable to debate Clause 13, but clearly the Assembly will not content itself with the powers which, alas, we have given to it in the Bill or with making recommendations on the reform of local government but will go on and attempt to put those recommendations into effect, or will demand that right.
I have received a telegram from the Clwyd County Council, which has been somewhat torn in its attitude on this measure. The council finally voted against devolution by a majority. It was not a large majority, but it was unanimous in its view that the Assembly should not be given power to reorganise local government. I do not want to go over this ground again, but I wish to quote one phrase from the telegram:
The Council though opposed to the Wales Bill by a majority is totally opposed to Clause 13 which it considers an alien clause leading only to centralisation rather than devolution and the negation of local democracy in favour of a regional power base.
The council has put its finger on the vital consideration. I believe that the Assembly will become a regional power base. It will make great play of the fact that it has particular virtue by the very reason of its being directly elected. It will be in a constant state of conflict with the Secretary of State over the override powers. This is what I mean by its being a corrosive process.

Mr. Ioan Evans: One of the difficulties felt by the county council is that

the subject committees to be set up by the Assembly will deal with the same subjects as those with which the county council deals—namely, education and other matters. The great fear is that there will be a duplication and that the Welsh Assembly, if formed, will be dealing with the same issues as are now handled at county level. This is why the county councils are making strong representations on Clause 13.

Sir A. Meyer: I have not examined that point. I do not know how far these reserved or override powers can be used to avoid conflict between the Assembly and the local authorities, but if I were to embark on that I should stray outside the terms of the amendment.

Sir Raymond Gower: My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) said that these were corrosive powers. The Minister of State said that he felt certain that this machinery would seldom be used. I hope that that is not a too optimistic view, because it seems to me that this is the most sensitive part of the legislation. It involves the relationship between Parliament at Westminster and the proposed Assembly. This is an even more delicate matter than the Minister has implied during the passage of the Bill and during our earlier tentious and almost objectionable.
One can imagine what could happen. The least miscalculation by the Secretary of State would arouse major controversy and strong dissident forces within the Assembly. The clause as drafted will enable the Government to override actions or decisions taken by the Assembly. Surely that means that we should frame this so that that would be even more rare than the Minister suggests.
I do not like the element of uncertainty. The Secretary of State will have to make decisions based on opinion and how the matter appears to him. I should have preferred a different machinery. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West that our amendments would have carried us a long way.
The Minister referred to the American Supreme Court. I should have liked us to rely on alternative measures such as the ultra vires doctrine. If the Bill was clearly worded and the reserved powers were clearly defined, as with the major


local authorities, it would be practicable, when the Assembly went beyond its prescribed powers, to decide by a reliance on the doctrine of ultra vires. That could be sustained in some cases by the alternative of resorting to a special court. Unfortunately, that has not been included in the Bill. The Government have decided on this peculiar form which I find contentious and almost objectionable.
The Minister said that reliance on the Secretary of State's decision was all right because he would have to defend that here. That is not the issue. The point is, will it be acceptable to the Assembly? Because a decision has been made by the Secretary of State, the Assembly will argue that is wrong. Assemblymen will argue that it is his decision on what is in the public interest and that it is wrong. There are many grounds for conflict.

Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Member follow the logic of his own argument all the way? If there is to be a constitutional court, which is what he implies, that leads to the question of whether there should be a written constitution. In that context, the issue applies not only to Wales but to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Sir R. Gower: Naturally, this is not difficult for me. I have always preferred a federal constitution which almost certainly would involve setting up some machinery in the courts. The Minister will know that. I cannot think of a federal system of any importance in the whole world where there is not some system of resort to a constitutional court to decide a conflict between the supreme Parliament and a regional one. If we had a constitutional system, I would certainly prefer also a system of resort to a constitutional court. That would have been far less objectionable than what we have here.

Mr. Geraint Howells: It will come in time.

Sir R. Gower: Its coming might be postponed through our setting up a greatly inferior system which could produce a conflict which none of us wants and which the Minister deems undesirable.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is confident

that the new form of wording would improve the situation. It might do so marginally, but it is making the most of a basically imperfect solution.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: It is difficult to guess what Clause 35(1)(a) might mean if it is not amended. It reads
If it appears to the Secretary of State—
(d) that any action proposed to be taken by the Assembly would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly, or".
One then has to look at subsection (3) to see what it is intended to mean. That arrangement is something we should, if possible, avoid in the drafting of legislation. It is a principle of sound legislative drafting that we should be able to look at a subsection and tell, without reference to another subsection, what it means.

Sir A. Meyer: Is it not a fact that in this magnificently drafted Bill nowhere does it say how many Members it is proposed should be elected to the Assembly?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am shocked by this astounding revelation from my hon. Friend, but, shocking as that is, it is in no way surprising. The two words are not synonymous. That method of drafting which I recommend has a great constructional advantage in that one can tell what the subsection means, if it means anything at all, simply by looking at it rather than by referring to the explanatory lines 27 to 31 to which, as the Bill is drafted, reference would have to be made.
Let us assume we leave the clause unamended. What is a matter which might affect a reserved matter? Let us consider Clause 29, which appears to be quite clear. It reads:
International affairs. The Assembly shall not in the exercise of its functions conduct relations with any country outside the United Kingdom.
So far so good, one might think. But is the Isle of Man a country outside the United Kingdom? Outside the United Kingdom it certainly is. It comes under the Home Office only because the Sovereign happens to be Lord of Man by her ancestor's purchase. But is the Isle of Man a country for the purposes of the Bill? I cannot find a definition of


"country" in any definition clause in the Bill. That being so, does Clause 29 interdict the Welsh Assembly and its Executive from negotiating with the authorities of the Isle of Man on matters which undoubtedly fall within the province of the Welsh Assembly? I honestly do not know. I suspect that the Minister does not know either. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
If the Minister wants to intervene, I shall gladly listen to his intervention before I continue. But if he cannot tell us here and now the answer to questions such as that, it means that his action is bound to be arbitrary rather than reasonable and predictable.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Wigley: Surely it is perfectly clear. The Isle of Man is outside the United Kingdom for all sorts of purposes, to which the hon. Member has referred, including the purposes of the EEC, and it can be defined as a country, as any other territory, whatever nominal title it might have, would be defined as a country. It is outside the United Kingdom. Although it has more powers over its own affairs than Wales will have under the Bill, it is still outside the scope of the Welsh Assembly being able to do anything about it. I should not have thought that there was any difficulty here.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is not in dispute between the hon. Member and myself that the Isle of Man is outside the United Kingdom, but I think that some lawyers would hold that the word "country" means "sovereign independent State".

Mr. Wigley: Wales is a country.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I thought that Wales was a Principality. Incidentally, even after the passage of the Bill it is not intended that it should be a sovereign independent Principality.
The Isle of Man has fulfilled one of the functions of a country, I would guess, in that the Isle of Man declared war on the Imperial German Empire in 1914. That is a historic fact. However, it was not a signatory to the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.

Mr. Walter Clegg: Was that not Berwick-upon-Tweed?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, it was not Berwick-upon-Tweed. Does that indicate that the Isle of Man was a country in 1914 and not a country in 1919? It was outside the United Kingdom then and it is undoubtedly outside the United Kingdom now. Whatever has happened to Continental Shelves, its location has not changed.
This is an excellent example of how the exercises of these override powers will necessarily be arbitrary—that is, if they are to be exercised at all. If they do not need to be exercised at all, they could be excised rather than exercised. In other words, we could delete Clause 35 altogether, which would possibly save the Committee a certain amount of time.
This is not just a theoretical consideration, because there are functions which the Welsh Assembly might want to operate which could require negotiation with the authorities in the Isle of Man—concerning, for instance, sea fisheries. That is one obvious example. Another example appears on page 62 of the Bill, in Schedule 2, Part XX, General. That is the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971, Sections 5(1) and 12. It could well be that matters into which the Welsh Assembly might wish to institute an inquiry under the powers given in the Act might involve some citizens of the Isle of Man who had possibly been wrecked in a fishing vessel or had interfered with harbour navigation in Wales. The Isle of Man is located not so very far from the coast of Wales. That is another example of a matter in which the Welsh Assembly might wish to intervene.
Bearing in mind that some airports are operated by local authorities rather than by the British Airports Authority, it might well be that the Welsh Assembly or the Executive might wish to enter into arrangements, for instance, with the provincial Government in Northern Ireland. That is quite a possible situation. Clearly, that would not be interdicted. It is presumptuous to say "clearly", but that would not be interdicted, I would think, by Clause 29. However, if those negotiations involved the overflight of the sovereign air space of the Republic of Eire, I take it that the Minister's finger might twitch in favour of making a direction under Clause 35(5) which would be binding on the Assembly. Therefore,


although I think we can anticipate certain spheres in which he could use these powers if he wished to do so, the borderline cases would depend entirely on appearances.
I think that the use of the words
If it appears to the Secretary of State
must be regarded as intolerable legislative practice. There are some legislative provisions which can be challenged on the basis that the Secretary of State or the Minister concerned is acting unreasonably, but in such circumstances it would be a reply to any court action to say "I certify that it appeared to me to be desirable to do what I did. However ridiculous it may appear to anybody else, to my deluded mind it had this appearance." He would then have, fulfilled the requirements.
I should have thought that if we are to bring Clause 35 within the reasonable purview of the courts—this is a point of substance—so that a court could, potentially at least, determine whether the Minister was acting ultra vires or intra vires, there should be a very much more positive criterion than the words
If it appears to the Secretary of State".
Even if it could be proved in court that the action was in no way outside the powers granted by the Bill to the Welsh Assembly or its Executive, as long as the Minister could aver "It appeared to me that that was so, even though I agree with you that it is not so", his override powers would be unimpeachable in any court.

Mr. Raison: I was hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) would intervene on that point. I should have thought that, after the Tameside decision, the assumption which is held in some quarters that what a Minister said was necessarily so—in other words, that the judgment was in the Minister's hands—is no longer as cast iron as it used to be.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, but I believe this is an attempt, by the use of the words
If it appears to the Secretary of State".
to make it cast iron. There are no qualifying words such as "If it appears to the Secretary of State upon reasonable grounds". The decision is absolute. It is

at the Secretary of State's unfettered and, if necessary, unreasonable discretion.
I conclude this section of my observations by recommending the amendment on the basis that, although it makes the powers no more reasonable, and although it in no way restricts them, it at least makes the Bill very slightly easier to read. It is a marginal matter, but undeniably it makes the Bill five lines shorter. I would have thought that that must recommend itself to every hon. Member of the Committee. I am happy to say that the other amendments we are discussing have the same effect. As a result of those amendments, page 13 would become two lines shorter.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Surely we are now suffering an extended filibuster. We have heard from Conservative Members how iniquitous the guillotine is and that there are important matters to be discussed later. Surely this is a classic example of the time of the Committee being wasted on matters of no substance.

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) must be allowed to make his speech in his own way and to advance his arguments.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Murton, for your stalwart protection, because that was the very first allusion that I made to page 13.
The courts have often criticised verbosity in drafting. If they were to criticise verbosity in other respects, I believe that Ministers would most likely be on the receiving end. Indeed, were the courts to comment on irrelevance I think that Ministers at Question Time would come fairly high up in the list of those criticised. However, if in going though the Bill at each stage we can insert amendments which make the Bill marginally more clear and marginally less long, those amendments stand on their own feet as ones to be recommended.

Mr. Brittan: I am not in the least surprised at the lack of enthusiasm shown by some of my hon. Friends for the amendment that we are putting forward. It is put forward as no more than a palliative. We have made it quite clear that we oppose the whole structure of the Bill, and it is quite impossible by amending


one clause to do anything substantial to improve it.
All that I am seeking to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends is that within the extremely narrow limits provided for us by the structure of the Bill the amendment is a limited improvement. I do not think that any apology is necessary from any hon. Gentleman for the fact that we have had a somewhat protracted debate on these provisions, because they are at the very heart of the Bill.
One of the major criticisms which has been made both of the Scotland Bill and of the Wales Bill is that they provide a real risk of conflict between the devolved Assemblies, Westminster and the United Kingdom Government. At the heart of this crucial question of conflict lies the question of the division of powers between the Assembly on the one hand and the House of Commons and the United Kingdom Government on the other hand.
The mechanism of the override powers is one of the most delicate and crucial ones in determining where the balance lies between the powers of the Assembly and the powers of the House of Commons. Indeed, as the Minister of State in effect recognised, there is a dilemma. Do we make the powers to intervene in the actions of the Assembly very wide, or do we make them narrow? I would tend to disagree with the hon. Gentleman in this respect only. I do not believe that the extent of the conflict will be determined by whether we make the opportunities for intervention wide or narrow. It will be determined by whether we intervene often or infrequently. That is much more likely to be the determining factor of the degree of conflict than is the width of the powers that entitle intervention.
In so far as it is the nature of the powers of intervention that causes conflict or detracts from the extent of conflict, what is important above all is not that the power of intervention should be particularly wide or particularly narrow but that it should be particularly clear. That is one of the major points of criticism of the formulation of powers in Clauses 35 and 36.
9.45 p.m.
It is important that the basis for intervention should be clear and apparent,

that the criteria for judging these powers of intervention should be rational and defensible and that the people of Wales should be able to understand why the House of Commons is seeking to intervene in a particular case. It should not seem to be an arbitrary and capricious intervention on the part of the United Kingdom Government simply because the Government of Wales are doing something of which the House of Commons disapproves.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: When my hon. Friend is making such extremely important points, will he reflect on the fact that, apart from the three Members on the payroll sitting on the Treasury Bench, the only so-called supporter of the Government who is in the Committee happens to be sitting on the Opposition side, thus indicating the totally uninterested contempt with which the Committee looks at the Bill?

Mr. Brittan: That is an important and significant observation, but it is one that could equally have been made at almost any time in the course of our debates. It is a scandal that the Bill should have got so far with that limited degree of support.
In considering the nature of the override powers and their extent, one has to say a word about the relationship between the override power and the question of vires. Although they are technically juridically and constitutionally separate, they are interrelated in the sense that, if there is an effective mechanism for ensuring that the Welsh Assembly does not exceed its legal powers, it may not be necessary to have quite so wide an opportunity for the use of the override powers. If, on the other hand, the powers that exist to prevent the Assembly operating in a way that is ultra vires are inadequate or unclear, it becomes that much more important to have an override provision.
I remind the Minister of State—I hope that I shall carry him with me on this—that the greater the extent to which one can rely on the ultra vires provisions, and the lesser the extent to which one can rely on the override provisions, the healthier will be the constitutional arrangements. The reason is that, although the Government have a schizophrenic attitude towards the courts, they


have been driven to recognise in the evolution of the devolution proposals that it is unavoidable that questions of strict vires should be considered by the courts. The Government having recognised that fact, I suggest to the Minister of State that he would have done better to take more seriously the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) on this matter and the vivid and apt illustration he gave of the Education Act 1976.
The provisions with regard to vires are inadequate, and that must reflect itself in our consideration of the override powers. My hon. Friend asked the simple question of what the Government would do if the Welsh Assembly failed to carry out the provisions of the Education Act 1976. The Minister did not give a satisfactory intellectual analysis of that problem.
The real position is that there are two possibilities arising here. The first is that in which the Welsh Assembly acts absolutely in conflict with the powers given to it and is in breach of the law. In that case the Minister has his answer in Clause 72, which enables the Attorney-General to institute proceedings against the Assembly to determine whether it is in breach of the law.
The more difficult question arises in the second case when there is an omission rather than a positive act of contravention of the law. In that situation the provisions of Clause 72 are inadequate, and the Minister might have to resort to the override powers. However, that should not be necessary. It should be possible to provide ultra vires determination powers as a much more acceptable alternative.
Even then, a further analysis is required. What may be granted by an Act of Parliament can be either a power or a duty to do something. If the Secretary of State for Education were granted merely a power that it transferred by the Bill to the Welsh Assembly, the answer is simple. The Welsh Assembly is in no sense obliged, except in exceptional circumstances, to exercise a power which is only a power and not a duty.
The 1976 Act is couched in terms of power for the Ministry but duty for local authorities. As far as that Act is concerned, if the Welsh Assembly does

not like it and does not wish to enforce it, the Act will become a dead letter simply because it is couched in terms of power and not duty. That raises echoes of the matter of legislative devolution that we were debating last Thursday. That means that, if the United Kingdom Government in future wish to legislate for comprehensive education for the United Kingdom as a whole, they cannot safely use the form of the 1976 Act because it would put at risk the implementation of the policy in Wales, where implementation is entirely dependent on the discretionary exercise of powers by the Assembly.
There is a profound implication for United Kingdom legislation generally in this, because it means that instead of allowing himself to use a form of legislation of that kind the Secretary of State of the day, if he wished to have his policy effected in Wales, would have to draw it up in a tighter way, imposing duties instead of powers or going into greater detail.
As far as sheer duties are concerned, there is a gap in the Bill. Even if a duty is imposed by the 1976 Act, the Bill is not apt to provide a means of resolving the conflict without resort to the politically charged override provisions.
Clause 72 is the key clause in this. It enables the Attorney-General to
institute, and the Assembly may defend, proceedings for the determination of any question whether anything done or proposed to be done by the Assembly is within its powers.
But I do not find there—and the Committee will look in vain to see it—anything entitling the Attorney-General to institute proceedings to determine whether or not the Assembly is in breach of its duty in failing to act in a particular direction. That seems to me to be an area of conflict which could have been resolved by a simple addition to Clause 72, which would have been wholly consistent with the Government's general conception. I criticise the Government for failing to take on board this point, or to provide for it.

Sir David Renton: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that there is a still further conflict to which reference has not so far been made, arising from the fact that any Attorney-General worth his salt places himself above political considerations in exercising the kind of discretion


which he is sometimes given by statute and presumably is to be given here under Clause 72? There is at least the possibility that an Attorney-General, for good legal reasons, will find himself having to take a different view, on the question of ultra vires, which my hon. Friend has so rightly described as a politically charged decision of the Secretary of State under Clause 35.

Mr. Brittan: I absolutely agree, and for my part, in drawing the line I would wish that there were a greater role for the Attorney-General rather than a lesser one, if we are to avoid politically charged intervention.
At this point turn to the question of the extent to which override should operate—whether it should operate in accordance with the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend or follow the scheme put forward by the Government. The Minister of State engaged in a certain amount of badinage, suggesting that we in this House had nostalgia for the Scotland and Wales Bill. There is certainly a tendency for the passage of time to cast a patina of nostalgia on even the most execrable object, but I can assure the Minister of State that the passage of time in this case has been insufficient to cast any kind of nostalgia on that particular legislative abortion, so he is deluding himself in that respect.
We have been entirely consistent, even if the Minister of State does not give us the credit for that, because although the guillotine did not allow us to raise it then, the very same point has now been raised as was raised on the Scotland Bill. The question is simply this: if one is saying that the Secretary of State can come before Parliament and seek to set aside the action of the Welsh Assembly if it affects a reserved matter, if it affects something with which the Welsh Assembly itself has not the power to deal, why should that right exist if what is affected is something concerning Wales—whether or not it concerns the United Kingdom as a whole—but not if what is affected concerns only England?
The argument in favour of altering the Scotland and Wales Bill formulation is simply insupportable. The Minister of State in seeking to defend it, put it in terms of saying that really only if the United Kingdom's fundamental interests

are affected by Welsh Assembly action should we seek to set aside that action; only it such action affects the United Kingdom as a whole, if matters such as defence are affected, should we have the right to intervene. That was the example he gave in seeking to illustrate circumstances in which the United Kingdom would operate its powers in this regard.
lf, however, one is talking about conflict and about action which is taken by the Welsh Assembly which is likely to have unacceptable implications for this House, I would have thought there could be no clearer example of an action which would be unacceptable to this House than an action of the Welsh Assembly, taken within its own powers but having an effect on England in relation to matters such as housing, education or all other matters in which Wales and the Welsh Assembly do not have a power to act.
I cannot imagine a situation in which the hostility and oppositon to what is being done by the Welsh Assembly would be greater than one in which the Welsh Assembly does something which has an indirect or direct effect upon matters which are exclusively within the power of this Parliament because they affect England alone.
By narrowing the terms of possible override intervention from those obtaining in the Scotland and Wales Bill, the Minister of State has put himself in a position in which all of his strictures about how much better it is to operate the override powers than to intervene by legislation make no sense at all. What he is saying is that in the most delicate political area where the exercise of its powers by the Welsh Assembly has led to unacceptable implications for English education, English housing, the override powers are not available and the Minister has to intervene with the full-blooded Act of Parliament, the full-blooded legislative intervention which he wishes to decry. That seems to be an illogical position.
The Government may understandably have been anxious to alter the Scotland and Wales Bill because of the criticisms made of it. In this case they have altered it for the worse. They seem to have been panicked into making any change rather than a well-thought-out change. What the Minister of State said towards the end of his remarks was that the important thing


to remember was that the fact that the powers were there would lead to their not being used all that much, because the Assembly would know of the powers and would not act in a way which would bring them into play. That argument would carry some weight if the powers were clear-cut, but they are not. They are expressed in vague terms. They talk about reserved matters being affected "directly or indirectly". They talk about a situation not only in which a reserved matter would be affected but one in which a reserve power might be affected.
In that situation the Welsh Assembly could not possibly know whether what it was doing would be regarded by a United Kingdom Secretary of State as

acting in a way which brought the override powers into effect. The suggestion that the existence of the powers would lead to the Assembly minding its "ps" and "qs" is entirely dependent on the powers being clear, not vague. However, vague is precisely what they are. For these reasons, although I do not pretend that the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire is more than a tiny improvement to an insupportable part of an indefensible Bill, for what it is worth, I commend it to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 132, Noes 169.

Division No. 142]
AYES
[10.04 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Banks, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow West)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Blaker, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Richard (Workington)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hordern, Peter
Pattie, Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Brittan, Leon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Jessel, Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brooke, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Brotherton, Michael
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Budgen, Nick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Burden, F. A.
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Knox, David
Rhodes James, R.


Carson, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridsdale, Julian


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Malcolm


Churchill, W. S.
Lawson, Nigel
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Clegg, Waiter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Colin


Cockroft, John
Loveridge, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Luce, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cope, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Speed, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Drayson, Burnaby
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Durant, Tony
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Marten, Neil
Tebbit, Norman


Elliott, Sir William
Mather, Carol
Temple-Morris, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mayhew, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D.


Forman, Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Fox, Marcus
Miscampbell, Norman
Viggers, Peter


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John


Gorst, John
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Younger, Hon George


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morgan, Geraint



Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Eldon
Nelson, Anthony
Sir George Young and


Grist, Ian
Nott, John
Mr. Peter Morrison.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)






NOES


Anderson, Donald
Bean, R. E.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Beith, A. J.
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Bradley, Tom


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Atkinson, Norman
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Bates, Alf
Boardman, H.
Buchanan, Richard




Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hunter, Adam
Rose, Paul B.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Campbell, Ian
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cant, R. B.
John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Cartwright, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sandelson, Neville


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sedgemore, Brian


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sever, John


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kaufman, Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cowans, Harry
Kerr, Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lamborn, Harry
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lamond, James
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Crawford, Douglas
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Spearing, Nigel


Crawshaw, Richard
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stallard, A. W.


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Loyden, Eddie
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cryer, Bob
Luard, Evan
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stoddart, David


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stott, Roger


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Deakins, Eric
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dempsey, James
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Doig, Peter
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dormand, J. D.
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, Kevin
Thompson, George


Eadie, Alex
Madden, Max
Tierney, Sydney


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mahon, Simon
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Mendelson, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ward, Michael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkinson, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watt, Hamish


Forrester, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Weetch, Ken


Freud, Clement
Newens, Stanley
Welsh, Andrew


Gilbert, Dr John
Noble, Mike
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ginsburg, David
Ogden, Eric
Wigley, Dafydd


Golding, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Graham, Ted
Ovenden, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Park, George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hardy, Peter
Parker, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Harrison, Rt Hon Waiter
Parry, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Henderson, Douglas
Panhaligon, David
Woof, Robert


Hooson, Emlyn
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Reid, George



Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Robinson, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. James Tinn.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roper, John



Question accordingly negatived.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 229, in page 12, line 42, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'and' in line 1 on page 13.

The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 230, in page 13, line 4, at end add—
'() A direction ender subsection (1) of this section shall be given if the House of Commons by resolution so requires, and any direc-

(a) shall, as regards its terms and the time at which it takes effect and otherwise, be in conformity with the resolution requiring it, and
(b) shall, for the purposes of subsection (6) of this section, be deemed to have been approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
() In the case of any direction under subsection (2) of this section that action shall not be taken, the Assembly or the Attorney General or any other person may, within the period of 28 days beginning on the date on which the direction is given, institute proceedings for the determination of the question whether the action proposed to be taken would be incompatible with any of the obligations referred to in paragraph (a) of the said subsection (2); and, if any such proceedings are instituted, the direction shall cease or (as the case may be) have effect only in accordance with the decision of the court in those proceedings.
() A direction under subsection (2) of this section that action shall be taken shall not have effect until the end of the period of 28 (or, if the Secretary of State in the direction certifies that the public interest so requires, 14) days beginning on the date on which the direction is given; but the Assembly or the Attorney General or any other person may, within that period, institute proceedings for the determination of the question whether the action so directed to be taken is required for any purpose referred to in paragraph (b) of the said subsection (2); and, if any such proceedings are instituted, the direction shall take effect (if at all) only in accordance with the decision of the court in those proceedings.'.

No. 233, in Clause 36, page 13, line 29, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'or' in line 32.

No. 234, in page 13, line 40, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'and' in line 41.

No. 235, in page 14, line 10, at end add—
'() An order under subsection (1) of this section shall be made if the House of Commons by resolution so requires, and any older so required shall, for the purposes of subsection (5) of this section, be deemed to have been approved by resolution of the House of Commons.

() An order under subsection (2) of this section shall not take effect until the end of the period of 28 (or, if the Secretary of State in the order certifies that the public interest so requires, 14) days beginning on the date on which the order is made; but the Assembly or the Attorney General or any other person may, within that period, institute proceedings for the determination whether the instrument which the order revokes is incompatible with any obligation referred to in the said subsection (2) or provides for any such matter as is referred to in that subsection; and, if any such proceedings are instituted, the instrument and the order revoking it shall take effect (if at all) only in accordance with the decision of the court in those proceedings.'.

Mr. Brittan: This group of amendments raises two issues of some importance, both of which relate to the exercise of the override powers whereby the House of Commons may intervene and prevent action by the Assembly within its powers if, none the less, those powers as exercised affect, or might affect, a reserved matter. Whereas in the previous debate we were considering the circumstances in which the powers should operate, we are now considering the equally important matter of the manner in which the powers should be operated.
Tucked away within the verbiage of Clause 35 there is a provision that we regard as being extremely objectionable from the general constitutional point of view. I refer to subsection (6).
I remind the Committee that the mechanism of the override power is that if the Secretary of State regards action that has been taken, or is proposed to be taken, as being where the override power is operable, and he regards it as being in the public interest to use his power, he may direct that the proposed action of the Assembly should not be taken. Equally, he may do the reverse and require the Assembly to take action of a specific sort in the exercise of his override powers. However, that directive, whichever form it takes, has only a limited period of life. Under subsection (6) the directive made by the Secretary of State under his override powers ceases to have effect at the expiration of 28 days, beginning with the day on which it is given, unless before the end of that period a resolution approving the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers is passed by each House of Parliament. So far so good—or at least so good if we are to have an Assembly at all and if we are to have this form of override power.
The objectionable part is the sting in the tail. The subsection goes on:
A direction … shall cease to have effect … unless … a resolution approving it is passed by each House of Parliament or is passed by the House of Commons and confirmed by it under section 73 below.
To see the mischief, one has to turn to Clause 73, which says:
Where a resolution passed by the House of Commons … is in pursuance of any provision of this Act capable of being confirmed under this section, it may be confirmed by a further resolution of the House of Commons, but only if—

(a) a motion for a resolution in the same terms as the original resolution is moved in the House of Lords but the House of Lords rejects it or fails to pass it within the period of ten days beginning with the day on which it is moved; and
(b) the original resolution was passed before the end of that period of ten days; and
(c) the further resolution is passed before the end of the period of ten days immediately following …"
In other words, if the Government seek to use their override powers—this is only one power where this provision applies—and cannot get their resolution through the House of Lords, they can simply come back to the House of Commons and get the same resolution through, using their majority, and that is that.
That is wholly objectionable. I do not think that, if it is thought right that a resolution of each House should be required in the first place, it should be possible for the House of Lords to be bypassed in this objectionable manner simply by getting the House of Commons to pass another resolution. Some Labour hon. Members are strongly in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords. They can put down a motion to that effect and we should debate it in the confidence that the unwisdom of such a course would be demonstrable. But the right way to go about the process is to put forward formal proposals which can be debated on a proper basis by means of legislation and not to try to begin the process of abolition by a back door in this truncated form of resolution.
Some provisions of the Bill, particularly the financial provisions which require parliamentary resolutions—for example, Clauses 42 to 59—require only a resolution of the House of Commons. Although it is perhaps undesirable for anything

but financial provisions, at least it would have been more honest for the House of Commons to be given power to pass the resolution required rather than going through the charade of sending it to the House of Lords and then allowing the Commons to overrule the Lords instantly by a single resolution of this kind.
If it is right that the House of Lords resolution cannot be got through, and if there should be a full parliamentary procedure, the Government should accept the consequences and know that they cannot get their override. An override is a serious matter and it is not unreansonable that if both Houses are required, prima facie, to pass the resolution, that procedure should be observed.

Mr. John Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman make one thing clear about his policy and that of his party? If a resolution is passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords disagrees, does he believe that the House of Lords should frustrate it?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman talks in grandiose terms of putting forward the policy of my party. I am flattered that he should think it appropriate that the policy of the Conservative Party should be put forward on this amendment at this hour of night in such a form. I do not think that questions of general policy arise. We have made clear what we think of this Bill and of the override provisions. But, for what it is worth, I can go so far as to say—I do not think it is necessary to go further—that, if there is to be a provision providing that each House of Parliament must pass a resolution, we believe that there should not be a provision to say that, if the House of Lords will not do what is wanted, the House of Commons can forget about it.

Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to my question? If the House of Commons by resolution approves a directive given by the Secretary of State, does he think it desirable that the House of Lords should be able to frustrate that decision?

Mr. Brittan: I do not put the matter that way. If the Minister does not get the answer he would like, that does not mean that I have not addressed myself to the question. He must distinguish between the answer he would like and the answer I propose to give.
The answer I give is that if there is a provision that requires a resolution of each House of Parliament it should not be possible to bypass it, or for the Government to take action unless that is done by a resolution of each House of Parliament. That is what the legislation, prima facie, says. If the Minister does not think it necessary to get a resolution through each House of Parliament, he should not make a provision which, on the face of it, says that there should be a resolution of each House of Parliament. There need be no more complication than that.
However, there is a second important constitutional matter that arises on the override provisions. As the Bill stands, it is the Secretary of State alone who can set in action the override provisions. It is purely a matter for him. The remaining amendments we are debating suggest that if the House of Lords passes a resolution requiring the override provision to be exercised, it shall have the effect of exercising that provision. It should not be necessary for the Secretary of State to introduce it.
I suggest that that is a modest and reasonable addition to the Bill. One must take account of the realistic fact that the Government will normally have a majority in the House of Commons and that a resolution of this kind will not be passed if the Government are totally opposed to it. Therefore, it is not simply a matter of allowing a maverick band of Back Benchers to take control of these delicate constitutional mechanisms, or to interfere in the relationship between the Welsh Assembly and the House. The Secretary of State of the day would be able to persuade the House that if it is firm Government policy, and if he can command a majority of supporters, such a resolution should not be passed.
We are asking for only a small chink in the armour whereby, if the House of Commons addresses its mind to something which the Secretary of State may not regard as appropriate to bring before the House, and if the House does not wish to follow the views of the Secretary of State, the wishes of the House should prevail.
We must also bear in mind that the Government control not only legislation but the overwhelming majority of the time of the Hounse. The prospect of such resolution being debated and passed against the wishes of the Secretary of

State is not likely to occur with any frequency.
10.30 p.m.
We are saying that if the House of Commons feels that the override provision should be exercised and then finds time to debate a resolution to that effect, and if, in spite of the majority of the Government, of whatever party, the House passes a resolution, it is reasonable, if one has any belief in parliamentary government, that the House should be entitled to secure its will.
In proposing this group of amendments we are in the unique position of defending in one debate both Houses of Parliament. We are defending the House of Lords against the exercise of the Draconian and unnecessary power that the Government might have. At the same time we are asserting the right of the House of Commons to secure its will over that of the Secretary of State if he wishes to exercise the override power.
For these reasons, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Sir David Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) has pointed out once again the extraordinary confusion in which the Government are placing the Committee. This confusion will persist if by some mischance the Assembly comes into being. The confusion arises from the combination of Clauses 35 and 21. The amendment would do something to reduce the confusion and clarify the position.
I understand that if the Assembly refuses to use the powers in Clause 21, under which it can pass subordinate legislation, it could come into conflict with the United Kingdom Government and their policy by refusing to pass legislation which has been approved by Parliament and laid down in statute. Under Clause 35 the Secretary of State has power to require the Assembly to pass subordinate legislation under Clause 21 which it has refused to pass. He would be required to do so—and I put this in the most favourable light—in order to overcome the conflict. The will of Parliament could prevail.
It is remarkable and without precedent that the Secretary of State should be able to give a direction to another Assembly


to pass subordinate legislation. If there were a precedent, it would help us better to understand the position.
The situation becomes more confusing when we consider the confusion which arises under subsection (6). The House of Commons may by resolution take a decision and the House of Lords may have doubts about it. Under Clause 35 (6) and the combination of that with Clause 73 the House of Lords can decide that the House of Commons should be asked to think again. That is what the other place is for. It is not inhibited as we are by party political considerations—

Mr. Douglas Henderson: That is not so.

Sir D. Renton: The House of Lords is a place of free thinkers. The mere fact that one party happens to have most Members does not of itself mean to those who understand the place that those Members dominate the scene the whole time. There have been many occasions in recent years when the Cross-Bench members and the non-Conservatives have won the day, irrespective of which party was in power, and have made the House of Commons think again.
The Government are trying to overcome the constitutional power and disregard the duty of the House of Lords. It has a duty to ask the House of Commons to think again if it conscientiously thinks it right to do so. The Government are doing it by what I consider to be a mean and underhand way. They are intentionally raising the conflict between the two Houses that has so far been most wonderfully avoided, whichever party has been in power.
We should bear in mind that when the House of Commons passes an affirmative resolution the House of Lords nearly always agrees. When it does not there has generally been a good reason for the non-agreement and the Government of the day have dropped the matter. But is it intended by the combination of Clause 35(6) and Clause 73 that the Government can create a precedent whereby whenever there is an affirmative resolution in the future the will of this House shall prevail and the House of Lords shall have no say in the matter? If that is what is

intended, that is an important constitutional change. It should not be slipped in in this indirect manner.
I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby said. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I express a small doubt about the drafting. A committee of which I was chairman, which considered the legislative processes of the House, heard most interesting evidence from the principal legislative draftsman of the United States Congress, Professor Reid Dickerson, a famous character in the English-speaking world for his expertise on drafting.
When he gave evidence to us, he said "I am an anti-deemer". That was his way of expressing it, in the way in which Americans do. What he meant was that he was against provisions in Acts of Parliament whereby we deem things to happen.
I observe that there is a case of deeming in Amendment No. 230. If the Government or my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby can think of a way around that, it would be an improvement to the drafting.

Mr. Brittan: I accept the reproof that has been given by my right hon. and learned Friend. I think that the answer is very simple. That particular subsection of the amendment could readily be dropped. All that would then happen would be that it would be necessary for another resolution to be passed. The purpose of it was simply that it seemed silly that where the direction was imposed by a resolution there should then have to be a second resolution confirming the resolution of the House itself, whereas if the direction was a ministerial direction it was obviously reasonable that it should be confirmed by resolution. But if the deeming is offensive, all that one would need to do would be to drop that, and then the principle of the House of Commons having the right to institute this remains and one merely goes through the formality of the second resolution.

Sir D. Renton: I think that I prefer the formality of the second resolution to yet another example of deeming being added to the Bill.
However, the case made by my hon. Friend was one to which the Government should pay heed. Clauses 35 and 36 are among the most unsatisfactory clauses in


the Bill and they are quite unnecessarily complex. They raise constitutional issues which should not be slipped in in the way in which they have been. They underline the whole weakness of the relationship between the Assembly and the Secretary of State. This failure to decide whether the Assembly really has a devolved power is an example of blowing hot and cold. The question of this concurrent jurisdiction must have a means, and necessarily a rather complicated means, of resolution.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have made a valiant attempt to overcome the inherent disadvantages of these clauses by their amendments, and I suggest to the Government that between now and Report they should reconsider them.

Sir Raymond Gower: I wonder whether the Minister of State recognises that the way in which the clause has been drawn has placed the Committee in a very difficult position. As has been pointed out, this is at variance with our past procedure. I wonder why the Government have departed from precedent in this case.
Does the Minister know whether there is any precedent for this? I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) or my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittany knows of a precedent. I am not aware of any precedent for the use of this procedure in this manner. There is, of course, the procedure under the Parliament Acts and succeeding legislation.

Sir David Renton: That is for legislation.

Sir R. Gower: Yes, and that is not applicable in a case such as this. But that established that under certain circumstances there was a complete limitation of the power of the House of Lords in relation to financial matters and that there was a substantial limitation of the power of the House of Lords to delay other legislation.
10.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, in an interjection, explained the reason for this unusual procedure by saying—he spoke rather quietly and rather quickly at the time and I hope I am not using the wrong words—that the wish of the House

of Commons should not be thwarted by the House of Lords. If that be the case, was not the term "slipping in" correct? The Minister of State objected to that phrase.

Mr. John Smith: I did raise my eyebrows slightly at the phrase "slipping in", because the purpose is very plain and clear on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I cannot see how anything can be said to be slipped in.

Sir R. Gower: Yes, but it was fairly obvious that this is an unusual procedure to put in a Bill. It is not altering the general procedure, the general law, but is there merely for the purposes of the Bill.

Sir David Renton: It is quite clear that my hon. Friend has understood the position and that the Minister of State has not. I used the expression "slipping in" deliberately, because this is a Bill to establish a Welsh Assembly and it is not the right vehicle for altering the powers of the House of Lords. If the Minister of State, at this time of night, is so dim in his mind that he cannot see that as an example of slipping in, I suggest that he should now take a very well deserved rest and let someone else—perhaps even a Law Officer, at long last—help him out. He has done valiantly, but he really should understand the position that arises on the Bill.

Sir R. Gower: That was what I understood my right hon. and learned Friend to mean.

Sir A. Meyer: Is it not the case that the Short Title ought to be amended to say "A Bill to provide for changes in the government of Wales and to reduce the power of the House of Lords"?

Sir R. Gower: I suspect that when I asked the Minister of State whether he knew of any precedent for this he would, had there been a precedent, have hastened to tell me. I suspect that there is no such precedent.
I should like to hear the answer from the Minister of State before we conclude the debate, because I think it is a very important matter. I challenge him to produce a precedent for the use of the power in this manner. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that it is most improper, in a Bill of this nature,


to introduce it in this way. The Government are not merely introducing a Bill to alter the constitutional arrangements for Wales. They are also taking a step which, for the purposes of the measure, will alter the relationship between the two Houses which are part of our constitution.
It would be quite proper for the Government to introduce legislation to alter the relationship between the two Houses, but I respectfully submit that it is improper to do it in the context of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will explain why it has been done and why this machinery has been devised.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I should like to say a few words on the question of the House of Lords. With respect to the Minister of State, he has not been very convincing so far in leaping up to the Dispatch Box and saying "What if the Lords frustrate?" As I understand the whole wretched measure, the way in which it is to be set up and the electoral system upon which it is to be based are designed to provide a Labour majority for ever. If the Assembly is to get that Labour majority for ever, what is the House of Lords to do? Is it to interfere with a Labour decision in the Assembly?
It seems to me that a little of the Labour dogma as used nationally has crept into the measure with the object of ensuring that there will be a Labour majority in the Welsh Assembly. If there were to be a Labour Government centrally and a Labour majority in the Welsh Assembly, does the Minister of State seriously consider that the House of Lords would interfere? If there is a Conservative majority nationally, it is unnecessary for the House of Lords to interfere anyway.
I stand here as a Conservative who is publicly committed to the reform of the House of Lords. It should be reformed, and it will be for the next Conservative Administration effectively to reform it so that it can perform its dual role with the House of Commons. To treat the House of Lords as an anachronism, to say that within 10 days if it does not come to a decision it shall be completely ignored, is utterly wrong. Whichever party might be in power nationally or locally, if the House of Lords decided with the Welsh

Assembly and was then frustrated, imagine what would happen in Wales. It is a free House, whatever Labour Members may think. If an Upper House, with its inbuilt Conservative majority, were to decide with Wales, Wales being controlled by a Labour or coalition Assembly, what would happen?

Sir Raymond Gower: In the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) if the Members of the Welsh Assembly had any suspicion about the Secretary of State's action and that action was challenged by the House of Lords, would not their suspicions and their opposition be strengthened?

Mr. Temple-Morris: The whole Bill is nonsense. Under these provisions I do not believe that central Government—the House of Commons in particular—will take much action to contravene the wishes of Wales, because this legislation gives enormous power to Wales. The House of Lords is embroiled in such a way that that will merely strengthen the Welsh position.
It is constitutionally wrong to treat the House of Lords in this way. The Government have an obligation to deal with this problem and to produce the necessary legislation to do so. That will be a difficult task. I shall be interested to hear what ingenuity the Minister of State employs with this matter.
What will he say if the House of Lords sides with Wales against a Labour Government in Westminster? What will he say to his Welsh friends if they are supported by a Conservative House of Lords? That is the nonsense of this measure.

Mr. Peter Rees: The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) in support of the amendment was so lucid, reasonable and compelling that I felt there would be no need for me to intervene, but the Minister of State has proved by his interventions to be so unreceptive to those arguments and so intransigent that I hope I may be forgiven for intervening briefly.
As I understand the provisions of Clause 35 (6), read with Clause 73, they involve a considerable erosion of the position of the House of Lords. I am


almost tempted to invite the Chair to rule whether those provisions are consistent with the Title of the Bill, which is to:
Provide for changes in the government of Wales and in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies.
I may be that in these contemptuous terms the Minister of State chooses to describe the House of Lords, in which case he is guilty of a grave affront to a body of co-ordinate jurisdiction and function with the House of Commons. I do not think we can dismiss the House of Lords as a "certain public body". If that is so, I venture to suggest—although it must, of course, be a matter for the Chair—that these matters should have been spelt out more properly in the Title.

Sir A. Meyer: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend's flow of Welsh oratory, but I feel that I must point out that we have at least one Labour Back Bencher, who is a real political heavyweight, joining the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out.

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) is now a regular member of the Government Front Bench. He has been there before this evening.

Mr. Rees: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Front Bench are happy to see his elevation. Perhaps I may be the first hon. Member to congratulate him. Whether his elevation is due to his unfailing loyalty to the Government, or his transcendent oratory, I am not in a position to judge. Perhaps he will enlighten us in due course.
I shall now leave this tempting byway, although I am always happy to follow the career of the lion. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnoch). I prophesy great things for him in the Welsh Office, or maybe even in the Welsh Assembly—who knows?
On this occasion I am very concerned about the position of the House, and maybe the hon. Member for Bedwellty has ambitions in that direction. I am strongly in favour of the bicameral legislature, and I would be happy to debate its composition and powers some time. Whether I am entirely in harmony with

my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) only time will show. My consistent complaint against the Government is that we are compelled to debate against the clock issues of great political and constitutional moment.
As long as we have a second Chamber and it is an integral part of the legislative process, it must be quite wrong to exclude it from such an important matter as this. Why have this dual process in Clause 73 at all? Why not exclude the House of Lords entirely? Why not simply say that a resolution of this House of Commons would be sufficient to disqualify any motion from the Assembly? Why offer the possibility of the House of Lords, only to snatch it away by another provision?
There is only one representative of the Welsh nationalists here to listen to this debate. That demonstrates the profundity of their commitment to constitutional reform. I know the devotion of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) to Welsh culture, but the way in which he associates it with a Welsh Assembly eludes me. Welsh culture will not be preserved, strengthened or amplified by the existence of even a bilingual Assembly in Cardiff, That is irrelevant.
As we are to have a Welsh Assembly, I would suggest that if there is to be a conflict between the Assembly and the Government of the day, which under constitutional functions means between the Assembly and the House of Commons, the Welsh nationalists should feel better if, in that situation a matter of conflict were to be submitted to the cooler, less partisan judgment of the Upper House. Perhaps the hon. Member for Carmarthen should consider that.
If this amendment is forced to a Division, I hope that the Committee will disregard the paranoic obsession of the Government Front Bench with the House of Lords. If that House were reformed—and, who knows, we might have an Upper House elected on some basis or another—it might contain a Labour majority.
Is the Minister therefore concerned to sweep aside that possibility? The hon. Gentleman demonstrates by his rather contemptuous dismissal of that possibility that he is concerned only with the role


of the Upper House to the extent of ensuring the unfettered and unhindered passage of Labour legislation under whatever circumstances, I find that a singularly shortsighted, not to say dishonourable, point of view. I hope that the Committee will not be swayed on these matters but will return again to the cool, limpid oratory—

It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to order [16th November]

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

TAXI TRADE (LONDON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

11.1 p.m.

Sir George Young: Most hon. Members are now on their way home—most of them, I suspect, in their own cars, one or two enlightened Members by bicycles. Many hon. Members will be outside at the Members' Entrance, waiting for taxis to arrive to take them home. If they find that they have to wait a little longer than usual, and if their cab driver is a little less alert and cheerful than they might expect, the reason is that the 16,500 taxi drivers in London have been singled out by the Government for harsher treatment than any other section of the community. They bitterly resent the way in which the Home Office has handled their application for a tariff increase.
I spent a few nights in Ilford, North a few weeks ago, for obvious reasons. I met many taxi drivers there. The animosity they expressed about this matter was something I shall always remember. I am delighted to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), who will represent not only taxi drivers but everyone else in Ilford, North for a long time. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), who has a large number of taxi drivers in his constituency.
Although the economics of the taxi industry are complicated, the basic case

which I wish to put to the House tonight is reasonably simple. It is that the cost increases that the taxi drivers have had to bear over the past two and a half years have been far higher than the tariff increases that the Home Office has allowed. As a result, the fleet proprietors have had to go out of business. The owner-driver is having to work far longer hours even than Members of Parliament and insufficient funds are being set aside for future investment.
The responsibility for this state of affairs rests entirely on the Home Office. To substantiate my argument I go back to July 1975 when the last major tariff increase took place, based on a claim made in December 1974. Since then the drivers have had a lop interim surcharge, introduced in December 1976.
It was against that background that a claim was made last July for an increase of 28 per cent. That sounds a lot, but we have to bear in mind that the increase in Britilsh Rail fares from January 1975 to January 1977, a roughly comparable period, was 93 per cent., that London Transport but fares went up 126 per cent., in that period and that Underground fares rose 147 per cent. Those organisations have access to capital funds to help them invest and also have access to revenue subsidies. Both of these advantages are denied to taxi drivers.
Put in the context of the costs of other transport organisations the drivers' claim was a modest one, reflecting the fact that, for example, a taxi cab that cost £2,900 in 1975 cost £4,500 in 1977. The cost of fuel has risen by over 50 per cent. and the cost of all the other related goods and services have gone up likewise. The figure of 28 per cent. was not plucked out of the air. It was substantiated in a detailed memorandum sent to the Home Office on 11th May last year based on a formula for calculating costs and revenues of the average cab used by the 1970 Maxwell Stamp report. Since that claim was put in nearly a year ago, costs have continued to rise.
The approach of trying to justify a tariff increase on the basis of costs was in line with the Price Code operating at that time. I quote from a letter which the Home Secretary—whom we are delighted


to see in the House—wrote to another London Member on 10th May last year:
In fixing the appropriate scale of charges for London cabs I, as Home Secretary have to have due regard to the provisions of the Price Code. Under the Code fares may be increased to an extent sufficient to offset the increase in prices which has occurred since the base date for the Code which, in the case of taxis, is taken to be 30th September 1972.
London's taxi drivers accepted that those were the rules, and they were quite happy to play the game by those rules. The country had a high rate of inflation and the Government introduced a policy to try to tackle it. Because taxi drivers suffer from inflation like everyone else, they supported the initiative and wished to stay within the limits allowed by the Price Code.
Now we come to the skulduggery, which is what has deeply upset the trade. Halfway through the game, when the taxi drivers felt that they were winning the argument, the Government changed the rules. This is set out in a letter dated 14th February from the Under-Secretary herself:
However, at the end of our deliberations, the Government had had to conclude that under current counter-inflation policy it would no longer be appropriate to allow a straight passing-through of cost increases into price rises. As you will recall, earlier stages of the counter-inflation policy placed emphasis on allowable cost increases. Under the current stage less emphasis is placed upon cost increases and more on profit margins, return on capital, and the factors affecting these, such as the efficiency of the enterprise and the use of resources.
That is a totally different game with a totally different timescale and totally different rules set up not by the Maxwell Stamp Committee but by the Price Commission.
The matter was referred to the Price Commission on 12th December last year, according to a parliamentary reply on that date:
Following consultation with the Price Commission and the Director General of Fair Trading I have today directed the Price Commission to examine and report to me on prices, costs and margins in the provision of cab services. The examination will cover all of Great Britain, and will include both hackney carriages, such as London taxis, and certain other private hire vehicle services, as laid down in the terms of direction."—[Official Report, 12th December 1977; Vol. 941, c. 15.]
We learn from the Minister's letter of 14th February that the Commission had been directed to report by 30th June.
By that time events had infuriated the taxi drivers and the matter had
been made worse by the Secretary of State and the Price Commission. If the inquiry had been confined to London's taxi drivers, and if it had started work on 13th December and used the figures of the audited accounts of the taxi fleets and the owner-drivers, which were available, it might have been completed by now. But none of that happened. The questionnaires on which the report is to be based have not even gone out yet. The offers of audited accounts were refused and, three months after the inquiry was announced, very little progress seems to have been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) was provoked to wonder in Taxi of 2nd March.
whether there was a conspiracy between the Home Office and the Price Commission to drive London taxi drivers so close to bankruptcy that the Labour Party proposals for the municipalisation of London taxis actually looks attractive.
The red herring of hire cars outside London has been dragged across the stage, and it is quite irrelevant to the problems facing London's taxi drivers.
In the meantime, an increase of 10 per cent. came into being on 22nd December last year based apparently on the 10 per cent. maximum wage guidelines. This is an entirely inappropriate basis on which to treat the taxi drivers' claim. By all means give the police and the firemen 10 per cent., but they do not have to buy the police cars or the fire engines and run them. To treat this as a wage claim instead of a tariff increase is totally inappropriate.
I should like to try to set out in simple terms the problems now facing the average cab driver. The average cab driver driving, say, 24,000 miles a year, which is approximately 54 hours a week, and allowing him a 10 per cent. return on his capital and letting him put enough money aside to replace his cab after five years, would in July 1975 have earned £2,730. His total costs in that year would have been £3,171. That left him a deficit of £441 per year. That has two consequences: either inadequate funds are set aside to replace his vehicle, or he has to work excessive hours.
If the situation was bad in 1975, by January 1978 it was disastrous. The figures for that month were: income


£3,430; total expenditure £4,587. It is not surprising that in the meantime firms have gone bankrupt. Since July 1975, five fleet proprietors, operating some 650 vehicles, have stopped trading. I calculate that to break even now a taxi driver would have to work an extra eight hours per week than he worked in 1975. This is before the impact on his take-home pay of higher taxation and inflation.
The taxi drivers are confident that the current inquiry will vindicate their claim, but they need the increase this summer. If the report is delayed, if the Government do not accept it or refuse to implement it on time and winter comes without another tariff increase, the situation will be desperate. I have had discussions with the Leader of the GLC, Horace Cutler, who obviously has an interest in an efficient taxi service, as it is part of the transport strategy for the capital. In a letter dated 7th March, I was pleased to hear from him:
We hold regular meetings with representatives of the trade to ascertain their views and we support them in their efforts to operate economically.
Basically, they want equal support from the Government.
It is against this background of growing financial problems and total exasperation with the Government that I put five specific questions to the Minister, of all of which I have given her notice. The answers may define the area of agreement, clarify the situation and perhaps demonstrate that the Government have some residual sympathy for the taxi trade.
First, will the Minister confirm that she and her Government believe that the capital city needs a flourishing and efficient taxi industry? Secondly, will she admit that the current level of tariffs means that a taxi driver working as hard now as he worked in July 1975 is substantially worse off on his vehicle operation, setting aside the ravages which taxes and inflation may have made on any take-home pay?
Thirdly, will the hon. Lady confirm that there is now no incentive to become a taxi driver, as a man who buys a new vehicle today, who makes the accepted provisions for depreciation, running costs and so on, will lose over £1,000 a year on his vehicle operation? Fourthly, will she give an assurance that the Price Commission will report on this matter, as

requested, by the end of June? Finally, in view of the intolerable delay to date and the impossibility of back-dating any increase, will she accept and implement as speedily as possible the recommendations it contains?
I forgot to say earlier that there is present my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill), who shares the concern of other London Members about this matter.
Licensed taxi drivers are entitled, if they are entitled to nothing else, to some straight answers to the straight questions that I have put to the Minister.

11.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) to discuss this matter and to put the record straight about London taxi fares. I thank him for giving me notice of the questions that he raised.
On the first one, about the general state of the industry, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State always has in mind the requirements of the general public in London for an efficient taxi service with ready availability of vehicles for hire at reasonable rates. Over the last few years, the rates of increase and the number of taxis in use and of drivers to drive them suggest that the trade is growing and flourishing. The number of taxis in use increases by about 500 to 600 each year—last year by 614. I have the figures for the last seven years. The number of drivers increased by 300 to 400—last year by 322. The number of owner-drivers would also appear to be increasing. All this suggests a faith in the future of the industry.
London taxis and drivers are licensed by the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Day-to-day licensing control is carried out by the Public Carriage Office of the Metropolitan Police. There are about 12,000 licensed taxis in London and about 16,000 licensed drivers. I should like to pay tribute to the work of the Public Carriage Office, which, with the support of the Metropolitan Police, has the very difficult task of maintaining standards in what is otherwise an unregulated business activity.
London taxi fares are determined not by the Commissioner of Police but by the Home Secretary. These fares apply to all taxi journeys in London, whatever their length, provided that they begin and end within the Metropolitan Police District. This responsibility has rested with my right hon. Friend for many years. I believe that the original purpose in regulating London taxi fares was to achieve uniformity, but over the years it has been necessary for various factors to be borne in mind in determining the appropriate fare scale.
We should appreciate that the arrangements under which London taxi drivers operate vary considerably. There are some drivers who own their own taxi. About a third of the drivers are in that position. About two-thirds of the drivers rent their taxis by the day, by the week or by a longer period. Those drivers pay either a fixed daily or weekly rental, or share the daily takings with the owner of the taxi in pre-determined proportions. It is, therefore, a rather complicated and varied situation. Any discussions on the scale of London taxi fares need to take into account the separate interests of the owners of taxis, the interests of drivers and the interests of the travelling public.
If fares are too low, there is insufficient incentive for the vehicle owners to invest in new taxis. Over a period that could lead to a decline in the number of taxis operating and a worsening of the service to the public. If fares are too high, that may lead to a reduction in the use of taxis by the travelling public, with a consequent falling off in takings by taxi owners and drivers.
Those were the considerations in mind when increases in London taxi fares were approved in July 1975, and again in December 1976. The application for a further substantial increase in London taxi fares was made in July 1977. The application was for an increase of 10p in the initial hiring charge of 30p and for the time and distance rate of 5p for each 450 yards to be doubled after two miles. Because of the combination of a fixed and a variable increase, the total effect of this claim, if granted, would have varied for different journey lengths. The increase for a short journey of half-a-mile would have teen 33 per cent. while the increase for a journey of four miles would have been 60 per cent. The fare

increase on the typical two-and-a-half mile journey would have been 25 per cent.
In the vast majority of cases taxi drivers' earnings are directly related to the fares charged, and fare increases of the sort proposed would have led to very large increases in drivers' earnings. In our view, increases of the magnitude that I have mentioned were quite unjustified, bearing in mind that unless steps were taken to prevent them very large increases would have been obtained by London taxi drivers at a time when other members of the working population were being expected to keep their pay increases in line with the Government's 10 per cent. guidelines.
As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, fares have been substantially increased since the middle of 1975. There was an increase averaging 30 per cent. in July of that year. A further increase of 10p per hiring—that is, 13 per cent.—took place in December 1976. There was a third increase of 10 per cent. in December 1977. These increases represent a total increase of 61·6 per cent. over the early months of 1975. If the effect of inflation and higher taxation is set aside, the taxi driver must be much better off than he was in early 1975.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman's third question concerning the man who buys a new taxi and works it for 54 hours a week. I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's statement, but the London taxi trade is an entirely private enterprise operation and every driver has complete freedom to choose when and where to offer his cab for hire and how many hours he shall work each week. Each driver maximises his earnings by using his knowledge and experience of the pattern of business offered and earnings will vary accordingly. The number of vehicles and drivers increases every year, as does the number of drivers who buy their own taxi. This does not appear to indicate that there is a loss on the operation.
Nevertheless, the case put forward on behalf of the taxi trade was carefully considered at several meetings with my right hon. Friend and me and the point of view of drivers was carefully considered. The Home Secretary had an important meeting on the subject last November and it became clear that it was necessary to look more deeply into the


basic cost structure of the industry. It was therefore decided that the Price Commission should undertake such a study.
It was also decided that this study should be extended to cover the costs and margins of both taxis and private hire cars not only in London but throughout Great Britain. This would provide a broad picture of the cost structure of the taxi and private car industry as a whole.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection announced in December last, the Price Commission is now hard at work on this study and is collecting the required information. I am sure that the representatives of the London taxi trade will put before it all the relevant statistical information.
I hope that the Commission will be able to indicate what proportion of the metered fare and of extras—for example, for additional passengers and baggage—goes towards the maintenance of the vehicle, and how much is available for the driver personally. It will be important in future discussions on London taxi fares to be able to distinguish between these elements and to ensure that drivers' earnings are not artificially inflated as a result of increases intended to compensate for rises in vehicle operating costs.
The hon. Gentleman asked two specific questions about the Price Commission. He asked for an assurance about when the Price Commission would report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has directed the Price Commission to examine the prices, costs and margins of the taxi and private hire trades and to report to him not later than 30th June. I have no reason to expect other than that it will report by that date. Obviously any assurance on this score lies with my right hon. Friend.
On the subject of the recommendation of the Price Commission, I can inform the House that the Secretary of State has already told the taxi trade representatives whom he met in November last that he will carefully examine the results of the examination and will take them fully into account when reaching decisions, but that he cannot enter into any commitments about implementation.

Sir George Young: The Home Secretary has given commitments in regard to other inquiries into wage matters which are the responsibility of the Home Office. Why cannot he do the same for taxi drivers?

Dr. Summerskill: That is a question for my right hon. Friend. Clearly, he does not wish to commit himself at this stage. I cannot say more than that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to question my right hon. Friend further on that point.
On 6th December 1977 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made an order increasing London taxi fares with effect from 22nd December last year. This represented an increase of 10 per cent. on metered fares. In the Government's view, such an increase was the most that could be justified in the circumstances and would enable owners to obtain a reasonable increase to meet rises in operating costs and to provide an increase in drivers' earnings in line with increases obtained by other members of the working population.
The Government believe that the continuing fall in the rate of inflation will be of significant benefit to the owners of taxis in London, as well as to the population at large.
We recognise that sacrifices have had to be made by all sections of the community, including taxi drivers, in the fight against inflation, but it now seems to be generally accepted that this fight has to be won. Individual sections of the community may claim that there are special circumstances affecting their situation. Most sections of the community seem to make that claim at one time or another, but I am sure that in the longer term the London taxi trade will recognise that its claim for increases of up to 60 per cent. in London taxi fares could not properly have been granted.

Sir George Young: Would the hon. Lady accept that, halfway through the negotations, the basic rules were changed? If they had been adhered to as originally set by the Price Code, the tariff increase would have gone through. Can she also confirm that her Department has had, for 10 months, the detailed figures on which I rested my case and which showed the deterioration in the financial position and


that she does not accept them? My figures showed that a new cab runs at an annual loss of over £1,000, and she claims that that is a fictitious figure. Will she also answer my second question, which related to the position as from July 1975? She carefully did not answer it as from July 1975 but chose a month earlier in the year, which was not what I argued.

Dr. Summerskill: On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I can only reiterate that the basic reason why a greater price rise was not permitted was the principle of adhering to the Government's 10 per cent. guidelines. That is the principle to which the Government have adhered all through the talks, and it was not possible to go beyond it.
The hon. Gentleman's question about new taxis was hypothetical. It was based on hypothetical figures. I have shown that each taxi driver operates in his own particular way, driving his own number of hours a week, and choosing when and where to offer his cab for hire. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat his third question?

Sir George Young: I asked whether the position from July 1975 to now had not deteriorated. The hon. Lady did not answer it because she chose a totally different base month from which to work, namely, January or February 1975. Will the hon. Lady now admit that the current level of tariffs means that a taxi driver working as hard now as in July 1975 is substantially worse off in money terms on vehicle operation, setting aside the ravages which taxes and inflation have made on any take-home pay?

Dr. Summerskill: I would still say that it would seem improbable. As I have shown in the figures I have quoted, successive fare rises at intervals over the last few years have brought about substantial increases since the middle of 1975. Over the whole period, even if the effect of inflation and higher taxes is set aside, the taxi driver must surely be better off than in early 1975.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.